ACTINOMYCOSIS 269 
it altogether. Furthermore, a great part of the drug is eliminated 
with the milk making it unfit for use. 
There is no diagnostic specific test or biological treatment for this 
disease. 
Sanitary significance. The literature upon this subject is largely 
to the effect that actinomycosis is rarely if ever either contagious or 
infectious in the sense that it can be transmitted from one animal to 
another or from one of the lower animals to man. There seems to be 
no indisputable case on record of such a transmission, although a few 
cases are very suggestive. It is the opinion of most pathologists that, 
when the disease is restricted to small tumors and these are localized, 
the affected parts should be destroyed but the remainder of the car- 
cass may be used for human consumption.* 
REFERENCES 
1. Ascnorr. Ein Fall von primadrer Lungenaktinomykose. Berliner klinische 
Wochensch, 1895, S. 738, 765 u. 788. 
2. Bouumncer. Uber eine neue Pilzkrankheit beim Rinde. Deutsche Zeits. fiir 
Tiermedizin, Bd. III (1877), S. 334. 
3. Bostrozrm. Untersuchungen tiber das Aktinomykose des Menschen. [ Zieglers 
Bettrag. zur path. Anat. u. zur allgem. Pathologie, Bd. IX (1891), S. 1. 
4. Harz. Actinomyces bovis, ein neuer Schimmel in den Geweben des Rindes. 
Jahresbericht der Kgl. Zentral-Tierdrzneischule in Mainchen, 1877-88, S. 125. 
5. IsraEL. Neue Beobachtungen auf dem Gebilde der Mykosen des Menschen. 
Virchow’s Archiv. Bd. LX XIV (1878), S. 15. 
6. Joune. Die Aktinomykose oder Strahlenpilzerkrankung, eine neue Infek- 
tionskrankheit. Deutsche Zeits. fiir Tiermedizin, Bd. VII (1882), S. 141. 
7. Kirt. Die Aetiologie und pathologische Anatomie der Actinomykose. Monat- 
shefte fiir praktische Tierheilkunde, Bd. II (1891), S. 466. 
8. Mayo. Actinomycosis bovis or “lumpy-jaw.”’ Bulletin No. 35, Kansas State 
Agric. Exp. Station, 1892. 
9. Moors. Actinomycosis mistaken for tuberculosis at postmortem following the 
tuberculin test. Am. Vet. Review, Vol. XXX (1906), p. 181. 
10. Nocarp. Notes sur l’actinomycose des animaux. Bul. de la. Soc. Cent. 
de Méd. Vétér., Vol. XLVI (1892), p. 167. 
*In Bulletin No. 2, of the Board of Live Stock Commissioners of Illinois, published 
in 1891, is the report of the somewhat famous trial in the Peoria county circuit court 
of the case of J. B. Greenhut et al. vs. John M. Pearson et al. to recover damages for 
the rejection and destruction of certain actinomycotic cattle, in which is given the 
testimony of a large number of distinguished veterinarians and sanitarians concerning 
the wholesomeness of the meat of cattle affected with this disease. Although at that 
time there was a strong popular sentiment against the use of such animals, the jury 
after a forty hours’ consideration reported their inability to agree and were discharged 
by the court. The most conspicuous feature of this evidence was the inability of the 
plaintiff to produce satisfactory evidence of the communicability of the disease from 
animal to man. This evidence did much to show that the danger from this disease 
in eating meat of affected animals is after all a matter of opinion, fear or sentiment 
rather than a demonstrated fact. Mayo states that there is no danger of persons 
contracting this disease from eating the flesh of affected animals provided the visibly 
diseased portions are removed. 
