234 GONORRHCEA, SOFT SORE, SYPHILIS. 



who in 1884 described a characteristic bacillus both in the pri- 

 mary sore and in the lesions in internal organs. He found it 

 in all of sixteen cases which he examined. This bacillus some- 

 what resembles the tubercle bacillus in shape and size. It occurs 

 in the form of slender rods, straight or slightly bent, about 3 to 

 4 fi in length, often forming little clusters either within cells or 

 lying free in the lymphatic spaces. Like the tubercle bacillus 

 it takes up the basic aniline stains with difficulty, but it is much 

 more easily decolorised by mineral acids. Lustgarten stained 

 the tissues for twenty-four to forty-eight hours in aniline-water 

 solution of gentian-violet ; and then, after washing them in 

 alcohol, placed them for ten seconds in a 1.5 per cent solution 

 of permanganate of potassium. They were then treated with 

 sulphurous acid, which removes the brown precipitate formed, 

 and decolorises the sections. They were then washed in water, 

 dehydrated, and mounted. The observations of other workers 

 have given contradictory results. De Michele and Radice, for 

 example, found Lustgarten's bacilli in the tissues in forty-five 

 out of sixty-four cases examined, while, on the other hand, other 

 observers have failed to find them. 



Apart, however, from negative results obtained by many, 

 criticism has been made in other ways. It" has been alleged by 

 some that Lustgarten's bacilli is merely the smegma bacillus which 

 has penetrated the affected tissues. This explanation, however, 

 would not account for the presence of the bacilli in the internal 

 organs, where they were observed by Lustgarten and others, 

 And further, there are minor points of difference between this 

 smegma bacillus and Lustgarten's bacillus. It has also been 

 suggested by some that the organisms described by Lustgarten 

 are merely tubercle bacilli which have been accidentally present 

 in the affected tissues. Those, however, who have found the 

 former organism in the tissues agree that it can be readily 

 distinguished from the tubercle bacillus, as it does not resist 

 decolorising with strong acids. This explanation of the presence 

 of these bacilli in the tissues is really without definite support. 



The organism has not been cultivated outside the body, 

 though, in view of what we know with regard to some other 

 diseases, this fact in itself does not form a grave objection. In 

 the absence, however, of definite evidence as to its invariable 

 presence in the lesions, its relations to the disease are still highly 



