BACTERIOLOGICAL NOTES 33 
the organisms alleged to be the cause of the malady. The 
Pasteurella canis was freely criticised by several authori- 
ties, Jensen considering it was not the cause of distemper, 
and McFadyean, Richter, Vallée, and Carré stating 
that it merely set up an accidental infection. Phisalix 
came to the conclusion that it generated an exotoxin 
which, by disturbing nutrition, weakened the animal’s 
Fic. 3.—PasTEURELLA CANIS OF LIGNIERES AND PHISALIX. X 1,000. 
Proceedings of National Veterinary Medical Association, 1902. 
natural defensive powers and facilitated secondary infec- 
tions. Indeed, it is an opinion shared by many observers, 
including myself, that animals succumb to these secondary 
infections more often than to the primary disease. 
_. Cadiot and Breton (1901) pursued some investigations, 
as a result of which they concluded that the infectious 
broncho-pneumonia was a disease quite independent of 
distemper proper. 
Von Wundscheim (1905) discovered an organism of 
the hemorrhagic septicemia type which he named 
3 
