154 BACTERIOLOGY OF THE EYE 



the spread of influenza. The records by Koch, Kartulis, Weeks, 

 and also Jundell, date from before the last pandemic, and have just as 

 little to do with influenza as have the later records. On the other 

 hand, it must be admitted that Muller found his bacillus, which we 

 cannot differentiate from the influenza bacillus, without any other 

 signs of influenza present. Zur Nedden, A. Knapp, and Luerssen saw 

 a few similar cases, as also have I. If we identify L. Miiller's bacillus 

 with the influenza bacillus, it must be admitted that an exclusive 

 affection of the conjunctiva by Pfeiffer's bacillus can occur without the 

 association of the usual influenzal symptoms. In most cases of this 

 form of conjunctivitis, however, the usual symptoms of influenza are 

 well marked. 



That on some occasions local conjunctival symptoms should be 

 specially prominent, and that on others general influenzal symptoms 

 should be most important, is not without analogy. The same is 

 noticed in other conditions. An infection of the conjunctiva, with its 

 limited superficial extent, has less disturbing influence on the general 

 health than an infection localized in the respiratory tract. Such is 

 the case in diphtheria, and especially so in pneumococcal conjuncti- 

 vitis, where general symptoms are only exceptionally present. This 

 latter example is a proof that specific localized affections of the con- 

 junctiva can dispense with the general manifestations of the organismal 

 irritant usually observed. Pneumococcal conjunctivitis associated 

 with pneumonia is extremely rare. 



It would be of great interest, with regard to the action of Pfeiffer's 

 influenza bacillus, if a positive inoculation of the human conjunctiva 

 with a pure culture obtained from a bronchial secretion could be com- 

 pared with an inoculation of the Koch-Weeks bacillus (vide p. 147 

 ct scq.). Such an experiment, however, can hardly be recommended. 



Luerssen, working with Kuhnt, has lately inoculated Miiller's 

 bacillus (i.<'., influenza) three times on the human conjunctiva. He 

 calls the results negative. The resulting conjunctival irritation and 

 discharge were certainly extremely slight, though on one occasion the. 

 conjunctiva was inoculated on three successive days, and two days 

 after the last inoculation the bacilli could be demonstrated in the 

 conjunctiva and in the nose (and that without any influenza !). This 

 is a very different result from inoculation with Koch-Weeks bacillus. 

 I can give an instance bearing on the question. While attempting to 

 syringe a case of muco-purulent dacryocystitis, pus from the sac, 

 containing enormous numbers of influenza bacilli, squirted into my 

 own eye. Although the eye was not cleansed, as I did not wish to 



