1913] RIGG—EFFECT OF BOG WATERS 321 
4. Bacteria were found in every case in both bog water and peat 
collected under sterile conditions. Some of the specimens of peat 
were collected from as great a depth as 75 cm. . 
5. Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas liquefaciens were identified 
in cultures made from surface waters in the Seattle bog. 
TRANSEAU (9) found bog waters to be teeming with bacteria. 
DacHNowsKI (4, 5) has found bacteria abundant and has given 
his attention largely to their physiology. Apparently the position 
that bog waters are very strongly antiseptic is no longer tenable. 
Discussion 
Suggestions offered by three other investigators (LIvincsToN, 
DacuNowsk1, and Covit1e) bear on the theory stated at the 
beginning of this paper. In 1905 LivincsToN (7) concluded that 
there were chemical substances present at least in some bog 
waters that affected the alga that he used (Stigeoclonium) as 
did poisoned solutions, and that these substances are not related 
directly to the acidity of the water. He concludes that “the 
stimulating substances here demonstrated may play an important 
role in the inhibition from bogs of plants other than those of 
xerophilous habit.” In 1909 DAcHNowsKI (3) stated his belief 
“that there are present in bog water and in bog soils injurious 
Substances which are, at least in part, the cause of xerophily in 
plants and of decreased fertility in bog soils.” In 1910 CovILLEe 
(1) stated that “the swamp blueberry (Vaccinium corymbesum) 
grows in peaty soils which contain acid or other substances poison- 
ous to plants. As a protection against the absorption of amounts 
of these poisons great enough to prove fatal, this plant, like many 
other bog and acid-soil plants, is devoid of root hairs and con- 
sequently has a restricted capacity for absorbing soil moisture.” 
In 1911 DACHNowsKI (5) words his theory a little differently and 
speaks of “the toxicity of the habitat and its consequent physio- 
logical aridity and selective operation on forms striving for occu- 
pancy.” In the same paper DACHNOWSKI says that “the reduced 
absorptive capacity of the plants is not a consequence of the absence 
of root hairs or of a smaller absorbing surface.” é 
It is thus seen that Livincston suggested that bog toxins 
