The Significance of B. Coli in Water. 113 



swine, and goats. Moore and Wright (Moore and Wright, 

 1900) recorded the finding of the colon bacillus in the 

 horse, cow, dog, sheep, and hen, and in a later report 

 (Moore and Wright, 1902) they noted its occurrence in 

 swine and in some but not all the specimens of rabbits 

 examined. In frogs it> was not found. Eyre (1904) 

 has more recently isolated typical B. coli from the intes- 

 tines of mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, sheep, 

 goats, horses, cows, hens, ducks, pigeons, sparrows, 

 divers, gulls, and fish of various sorts. Houston (1904) 

 found B. coli abundant in the feces of gulls, as might be 

 expected from their feeding habits. Houston (1905) 

 and other recent observers have found it impossible, 

 even by the use of elaborate series of fermentation tests, 

 to distinguish human B. coli from those found in animals. 

 Savage (1906) compared colon-like organisms isolated 

 from the intestines of swine, cattle, horses, and sheep 

 with those of human origin in respect to their action upon 

 lactose, dulcite, mannite, raffinose, glycerine, maltose, 

 galactose, laevulose, saccharose, starch and cellulose; 

 but he failed to find any general correlations between 

 habitat and biochemical powers. 



In cold-blooded animals the occurrence of B. coli is 

 less constant. Negative resuhs in the frog and positive 

 results in certain fishes have just been quoted. Amyot 

 (1902) failed to find the organism in the intestines of 

 23 fish representing 14 species. Johnson, on the other 

 hand (Johnson, 1904), in the examination of the stomach 



