288 PROTECTIVE INOCULATIONS. 
_.This question of quantity was manifest in our experiments. Not only 
did it vary in different species, the rabbit and the dog, for example, but it 
may vary in the same species.” 
The identity of “ Davaine’s septicemia” with Pasteur’s choléra des 
poules is made still more probable by the experimental evidence 
offered by Toussaint in a communication to the French Academy of 
Sciences, made by M. Bouley at the séance of July 25th, 1881. In 
this communication Toussaint says: 
‘“‘Three years ago, July 8th, 1878, I had the honor to present to the 
Academy an account of a malady due to microbes, which I identified with 
that studied by Davaine in 1864 and 1865, and which he differentiated from 
anthrax, for which it had been mistaken by Leplat and Jaillard. 
‘‘In the month of December, 1878, I made acquaintance with fowl 
cholera, and already, in my thoughts, I identified this disease with that 
which I had observed in my experiments made early in the year. The mi- 
crobes of the two diseases resembled each other perfectly and behaved the 
same when inoculated in rabbits. I had, even in 1879, sent to M. Bouley 
two notes, in which I called attention to the analogies which exist between 
the parasites of the two diseases and the lesions which they determine, not 
only in the rabbit but also in pigeons and fowls. 
‘‘The experiments of the same kind made at the end of 1879 and in 1880 
caused me to insert the note published on page 301, vol. xci., of the Comptes- 
rendus, under the title of - ‘Identity of Acute Experimental Septiczemia 
and Fowl Cholera.’ I gavea résumé in this note of five series of experi- 
ments which had demonstrated to me that inoculations of the microbe of sep- 
ticzemia give rise to the manifestations of fowl cholera. These results have 
recently been confirmed by additional facts.” 
Toussaint closes his paper by some remarks upon the origin of 
epidemics of fowl cholera, which we quote because we believe that the 
additions made to our knowledge of the microbe which causes this 
disease give support to the views advanced by him in 1881: 
““The causes which determine epidemics of fowl cholera are yet unknown. 
It has been supposed that putrefactive substances may give rise to them, and 
this has led to the recommendation of cleanliness and disinfection for their 
prevention. The microbe which kills the first fowl in an epidemic certainly 
came from some anterior generation which had killed others. But how was 
it perpetuated? Do not the facts which demonstrate the development of sep- 
ticeemia from material undergoing putrefaction throwsome light on the ques- 
tion of etiology? Isit not probable: that the fowls find the conditions of 
infection with cholera in the presence of organic matter undergoing putrefac- 
tion, which may serve as a culture medium for the germs of septicemia 
herr oo in suspension in the air togéther with the ordinary germs of putre- 
action : 
Pasteur’s first communication relating to the etiology of fowl 
cholera was made to the French Academy at the séance of February 
9th, 1880. In‘this communication he calls attention to the fact that 
when fowls are fed with bread or meat’ soiled with a small quantity 
of a culture of the microbe of fowl cholera they become infected and 
their discharges contain the bacillus in large numbers, a fact which 
