24 CANINE DISTEMPER 
of the disease. (4) When I suggested to Dr. Ferry 
that a dog suffering from distemper as a result of 
experimental inoculation with B. bronchisepticus would 
not be a source of natural infection to healthy dogs his 
reply was: 
‘What difference does it make so long as the disease 
was produced? If distemper is the result of the 
experimental inoculation, that proves conclusively the 
specificity of the organism. There are several examples 
one might cite where animals experimentally inoculated 
with an injection are not sources of natural infection to 
other animals. It is a common laboratory occurrence ! 
However, I am not so sure that a dog experimentally 
infected with distemper, using B. bronchisepticus, is not 
a source of infection. There are no references in the 
literature that I have run across to that effect, and I 
have had several cases where I felt sure that they were 
sources of infection. This criticism, on the face of it, is 
no argument against the specific nature of the organism.” 
Copeman’s Bacillus——Dr. Monckton Copeman, F.R.S., 
isolated a cocco-bacillus in 1900,* which he claimed was 
the specific causal organism of distemper, and he made a 
vaccine for prophylactic purposes, which some users are 
agreed affords a valuable protection, not only in warding 
off attacks, but in rendering those which are contracted 
very much more benign. [This will’ be discussed at 
greater length under “ Preventive Inoculation.”] There 
seems some reason to believe that Copeman’s organism 
is very similar to—if not identical with—the one which 
Ferry isolated in 1908 and described in 1910. The 
former, however, is said to form frequently long chains 
(see Fig. 2), whilst the latter is found singly or in pairs. 
In a letter, Ferry observed : 
“While I believe that Dr. Copeman might have been 
working with B. bronchisepticus—and I told him so 
* Proceedings of Royal Society, vol, Ixvii. 
