78 CANINE DISTEMPER 
tures. His patients resisted the natural as well as the 
experimental infection. — 
Phisalix Vaccine——About six months subsequent to 
the communication of Copeman’s paper to the Royal 
Society, Dr. Phisalix announced to the Société de Méde- 
cine Vétérinaire Pratique in Paris, that he had isolated 
the specific microbe of distemper, and that by inoculating 
with it in cultures of increasing virulence he had suc- 
ceeded in rendering dogs immune against the disease. 
As regards the isolation of the specific microbe, how- 
ever, he acknowledged his anticipation by M. Lignieéres, 
stating his belief that the ovoid bacterium discovered by 
Ligniéres, and named by him Pasteurella canina, was 
identical with the cocco-bacillus which he believed to be 
the causative agent of distemper. According to Dr. 
Phisalix, Professor Ligniéres contented himself with the 
isolation of the micro-organism, and the demonstration of 
its capability, when injected in pure culture, of reproduc- 
ing in the dog all the classical features of distemper, the 
results obtained varying in accordance with the virulence 
of the culture, the dose employed, and the manner of 
inoculation—whether subcutaneous, intravenous, or intra- 
peritoneal; but he did not apparently carry out any 
investigations as to the possibility of employing a culture 
of the micro-organism, living or dead, or its products, or 
both combined, for the purpose of protecting dogs against 
subsequent invasion of the natural disease. This, how- 
ever, Dr. Phisalix claimed to have done, and he put on 
record certain statistics showing the results of the vacci- 
nations he carried out. 
Cultures were grown on an artificial medium of glyceri- 
nated broth, which were purposely attenuated by sub- 
cultivation or by age, and the potency of the vaccines 
obtained varied according to the degree of attenuation 
arrived at. Phisalix advocated using two vaccines differ- 
