456 MICRO-ORGANISMS AND DISEASE [chap. 



hand manner that R. Pfeiffer does when criticising SanarelH's 

 results. Nor do I think that the discoverers of the various 

 water vibrios (berilonensis, danubicus, Dunbar's vibrio found 

 in the Elbe in 1894, and other similar finds) are justified 

 by the small differences observable between these vibrios 

 and the typical cholera vibrio in denying a genetic relation. 

 I do not for a moment intend to imply that any or all were 

 so related, but because the waters, in which these vibrios 

 were found, did not produce cholera in the consumers, is 

 not sufficient arugment, as for the production of cholera it 

 would require a virulent cholera vibrio and various other 

 factors (mentioned on a former page), and all these may 

 have been absent in these cases. 



I have isolated a vibrio from drain water (Hull,' Sutton 

 drain) which was described on page 193 in the Cholera 

 Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government 

 Board, 1894; the cultural characters of this vibrio were in 

 some respects distinctly different from the typical cholera 

 vibrio, in others they were identical, but in etiological 

 respects there was strong evidence that the water of that 

 Sutton drain had an important relation to causing cholera 

 asiatica {see Dr. Theodore Thomson's report, ibidem, pp. 

 loi, 102). 



On the other hand, in certain filth-polluted well-water, to 

 the consumption of which an epidemic of Asiatic cholera at 

 Ashbourne in September, 1893, had been clearly traced {see 

 Dr. Bruce Low's report, ibidem, p. 127), I have found in 

 the floccular suspended matter crowds of comma bacilli 

 (Fig. 182) which in morphological and cultural characters com- 

 pletely resembled the typical cholera vibrio {ibidem, p. 194). 



The vibrio isolated by Pestana {Centralbl. f. Bakt. und 

 Parasite?ikunde, 1894) from the flakes of the dejecta of 

 cases of epidemic cholerine in Lisbon grows much slower 



