PROCEEDIXGS OF THE SOCIETY. 849 



evening — gave liim a sample of urine wliicli, when examined under the 

 microscope, was found to contain a particular bacillus. After the 

 ordinary process of preparation, and after staining by the method of 

 Neilson, on the eighth or ninth slide being examined, he found a bacillus 

 which resembled very closely in appearance Bacillus tuberculosis. 

 Having afterwards obtained another sample from the same source, he 

 found in the albimiinous residue a still larger proportion of the same 

 bacillus ; but although it showed the same beaded appearance, and had 

 the same power of retaining the stain in the presence of nitric acid, he 

 could not, of coi;rse, say yet that it was B. tuberculosis, though it very 

 strongly resembled it in appearance. He believed that it was very rare 

 to find it in this way in the urine, though it was said that in some cases 

 of tubercular disease of the kidney it was to be found. The patient 

 from whom the specimens came was alive, and the case was looked upon 

 as one of great interest by Dr. Bullock, and if it subsequently proved 

 that this bacillus was really identical with B. tuberculosis, it would show 

 the importance of its being looked for in similar cases. The preparation 

 shown under the Microscope in the room would be seen to be full of the 

 bacilli, lying mostly in groups. 



Dr. Bullock said the case to which Mr. Hall had referred had been 

 under his care for some time, and had presented considerable difficulty 

 in diagnosis. Several opinions had been taken upon it ; and the 

 question was whether it was a case of calculus in the kidney, or whether 

 it was one of tuberculosis. This was obviously of great importance to 

 determine, since if it was calculus it would be remediable by oj^eration, 

 whereas if the case was one of tuberculosis nothing could be done. 

 After seeing the bacillus, and considering the specific gravity of the 

 water, he was inclined to think that there was tuberculosis. 



Mr. G. C. Karop said it was well known that tuberculosis of the 

 kidney could be detected by the examination of the urine, the j)resence 

 of bacilli having been observed since about 1882. The morphological 

 characters of bacilli were, however, so very variable, that it was hardly 

 safe to rely simply upon the appearance they i)resented. He would 

 not, of course, venture to say that those which were obtained in this 

 case were not Bacillus tuberculosis ; but he should not like it to be 

 thought that this method of examination in suspected cases of this 

 disease was uncommon or usually neglected. 



A Fellow asked if there had been any attempt made to cultivate the 

 bacillus '? 



Mr. Hall said that this had not yet been done, though it was in con- 

 templation. He had shown it to Prof. Crookshank, and though he very 

 properly declined to commit himself to any opinion at present as to what 

 specific form it was, he proposed to follow up the matter by cultivation, 

 and eventually to test it by inoculation. 



Dr. Hebb inquired if Dr. Bullock would state the age of the patient, 

 also how long the case had been under treatment ; whether there was 

 any tubercular disease of the lungs, or any in the family history ? 



Dr. Bullock said that the patient was twenty-one years of age, and the 

 symptoms were of about 4^ years' duration. The first complaint was 

 of pain in the right kidney, and then for a long-continued period there 

 was pain in the left kidney. He found there was lithic acid present in 

 the urine, and there had been some symptoms of stone in the bladder, 

 as well as several symptoms of stone in the kidney ; but at present 



1889. 3 N 



