Kucharski, Wittram, Wilbrand, Saenger, and Staehlin ; they are not 

 constant (Schmidt-Eimpler), and are not the cause of the condition. 

 In an epidemic, which he later called a ' conjunctivitis folliculosa,' 

 Michel observed in the secretions Gram-positive Diplococci, belong- 

 ing to the staphylococcal group, and resembling Gonococci. 



Seeing that Sattler as well as Michel reports the production of 

 follicles by the inoculation of these cocci on to the scarified con- 

 junctiva, we can attribute to them some definite pathogenicity for 

 a damaged conjunctiva. But even these authors no longer consider 

 them to be the cause of trachoma (cf. ' Staphylococcal Conjunctivitis '). 

 Wilbrand, Saenger and Staehlin frequently found these cocci along 

 with a yellow variety, and also the Koch- Weeks bacillus : they attri- 

 bute the power of producing follicles to them. They, however, rarely 

 record appearances like trachoma. When forming any conclusion 

 regarding these findings, we must bear in mind that both of theso 

 epidemics of follicular conjunctivitis occurred hi districts in which 

 true trachoma is almost never seen. 



Shongolowicz considered that the cause of trachoma was the Bacillus 

 xerosis ; Noiczewski attributed it to the mould fungi ; l Burchardt 

 thought that the goblet cells of the conjunctiva were Protozoa ; and 

 Elze considered the cell detritus to be parasites. These ideas have 

 long since been put on one side. The latest records by Elze (Wocli.f. 

 Ther. u. Hyg. d. A., 1905, p. 18) concerning 'Fungi Imperfecti in the 

 Secretions of the Eye ' only refer to the casual occurrence of a con- 

 taminating organism of the Cryptogam family. Krudener described 

 peculiar cell inclusions in the large cells of the trachoma follicles ; 

 these, on account of their molecular movements, he called ' Korper- 

 chenzellen' or * Wimmelzellen.' 2 It is doubtful whether they really 

 have a parasitic nature, as Leber has found the same appearance in 

 the follicles of the normal conjunctiva. Similarly, we cannot accept 

 Santucci's views that the Streptoihricea have a causal connexion with 

 trachoma. 



The importance of the ultra-microscopical results reported by 

 Raehlmann and Santucci is very doubtful (cf. the statement about 

 the Halberstaedter and Prawoczek bodies). The larger examples of 

 the bacilli described by Raehlmann were not ultra-microscopical, 



1 In a later work (1905) he calls his organism a variety of leptrothrix, the Microsporon 

 trachomatosum, which lies around the trachoma follicle, while its fructification organs are 

 in the interior of the granule, and form the hyaline bodies. It is obvious that Noiczewski 

 has mistaken histological tissue changes for fungi. As a matter of fact, no such organisms 

 are present. 



2 Literally, ' granule cells ' or ' swarming cells. ' 



