776 Actinomycosis 



since 1847 when von Langenbeck observed a case of spinal caries in a 

 human being, in which he discovered "drusen" (as the parasitic 

 organismal masses are called), and identified as the same disease as 

 that occurring in the lumpy Jaw of cattle. The "drusen" he 

 sketched and after examining them came to the conclusion that they 

 were masses of fungi. 



Lebert* undoubtedly saw the same fungus masses but failed to 

 appreciate their nature. Rivolta,t PerroncitoJ and Hahn§ all rec- 

 ognized the bodies and regarded them as fungi, but it remained for 

 Bollinger|| to carefully describe them and point out their peculiar 

 radiating club-shaped formations. 



J. Israel** studied the lesions of the disease and described it as a 

 new form of mycosis. Ponfickft proved the identity of the disease 

 described by Israel with the well-known disease of cattle. 



Important biological and cultural studies of the fungus were made 

 by BostromJt and by M. Wolff and J. Israel.§§ 



Following these came a long series of publications by many 

 authors in different countries, all generally confirmatory of the 

 main facts but filled with contradictions and paradoxes. Thus, 

 the parasitic fungus isolated by Bostrom grew easily and was an 

 aerobe of pathogenic properties, while those isolated by Wolff and 

 Israel were extremely difficult to cultivate, anaerobic for the most 

 part and irregularly pathogenic for animals. Most of the contribu- 

 tions favored the parasite of Bostrom. 



It was not until J.H. Wright|||| made a critical study of the litera- 

 ture and supplemented it by a careful study of newly isolated organ- 

 isms from 13 cases of human and 2 cases of bovine actinomycosis, 

 that the discrepancies began to disappear. Even then there seemed 

 to be some doubt as to whether the results were entirely conclusive, 

 but no one has yet controverted Wright and it seems that the time 

 has come for a more widespread acceptance of his ideas. He be- 

 lieved that the error in the work of his predecessors depended upon 

 the circumstance that two separate and distinct organisms had been 

 isolated by Bostrom and his followers, and by Wolff and Israel and 

 himself. 



Bostrom 's organism was a branched fungus of which all was prob- 

 ably true that was claimed for it, that is, it was isolated from cases 



* Trait6 d'Anat. pathologique g6nSrale et specielle, Paris, 1857. 

 filmed, veter.," 1868. 



t "Encyclop. agraria italiano, di Catani," 1875. 



§ "Jahresberichte derk. Central-Tierarzneiscliule in Munchen," 1877-81, 132. 

 II "Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Tiermedizin," 1877, ni; and " Centralblatt fur 

 Medizinische Wiesenschaft," 1877, xv. 

 ** "Virchow's Archiv.," 1878, No. 74. 

 ft "Breslauer arzl. Zeitscluift," 1879, and 1885, p. 30. 



tj "Berliner klin. Wochenschrift," 1885; "Beitrage zur pathol. Anat. u. zur 

 allg. Path.," 1890, DC, Heft i. 



§§ "Virchow's Archives," 1891, cxxvi; "Deutsche med. Wochenschrift," 1890 

 and 1894; "Virchow's Archives Bd." cli, p. 471. 

 nil "Jour, of Med. Research," 1904, xin, p. 349. 



