﻿ETIOLOGY OF MYCETOMA. 487 



INOCULATIONS INTO MONKEYS' FEET. 



Monkey number 3266 was inoculated with fresh material, in the left foot, after 

 incision and scraping the metatarsal bones. Sixteen days later a marked swelling 

 of the foot developed, and after twenty days, numerous, suppurative lesions 

 appeared between the toes, on the ball of the foot, and on the heel. The animal 

 died of malnutrition. 



Section of the foot. — A cut section of foot showed a slight necrosis of the tarsal 

 bones and numerous sinuses, containing pus, surrounded by necrotic material 

 extended throughout the organ. A pure culture of the microorganism was isolated 

 from the discharge. 



Monkey number 3310. — Inoculated with 0.25 of a potato slant culture in the 

 ball of the foot. After ten days a marked swelling developed, this afterward sup- 

 purated and broke down, discharging a viscid, cream-like pus, containing a quan- 

 tity of the Streptothriac. At present the animal is still living and shows a 

 typical Madura foot. (See PI. I, fig. 2.) 



Monkey number 3311. — Inoculated with 0.25 of a slant potato culture in the 

 ball of the foot, the animal is still living and presents the same characteristic 

 lesions as does monkey number 3310. (See PI. I, fig. 3.) 



HISTORY AND LITERATURE. 



Notwithstanding the inaccessibility of many of the older articles in 

 the original, we have been able to study practically all of the important 

 discussions of this subject, and from these, as well as from other refer- 

 ences, Miss Polk, librarian of the Bureau, has been able to compile a fairly 

 complete bibliography. No article of great importance, except from an 

 historical standpoint, existed before the observations of Vandyke Carter, 

 which extended from 1859 to 1874. The greater part of the oldest 

 literature" is in the English Army Eeports from India and therefore is 

 not available to the general public. 



Kampfer (1712), according to Scheube, was the first European physician to 

 mention the disease, which he discussed under the name "Perical." The same 

 author states that Heynes (1806) reviewed the subject in his historic and statis- 

 tical news of India. Both of these writers, and perhaps all others before 1840, 

 confused Madura foot with elephantiasis and other independent diseases. How- 

 ever, to judge from the translation of some of the older native names it seems 

 that it was considered to be something specific and definite by the natives of 

 India. Scheube informs us that Brett (1840) was the first author to indicate 

 that Madura foot is a specific disease. 



During the ten years from 1840 to 1850, mention of the disease occurs 

 several times; the following may be mentioned: Gill (1842) reported it from 

 Madura; Godfrey (1844) from Bellary; Colebrook (1844) from Madras; 

 Gunther (1844) from Coddapah. Eyre (1848) reported cases from Bellary 

 and according to Hirsch made the first collection of the literature and he 

 as well as Godfrey and Colebrook 1 (1850) gave a general description of the 

 disease, the latter indicating its specific character. Scheube states that Ballingal 

 (1855) reported one case and first described the infection in detail as being 

 of a parasitic nature. A careful description was also given by Eyre (1860), 

 by Collas (1861), (Hirsch) and Biddle (1862), who reported eases, and by 



1 Military Med. Reports, Madras (1850). 



