608 PATHOGENIC SPIRILLA. 
finely granular colonies, which at the end of forty-eight hours were not yet 
visible to the naked eye. Heider (1893) isolated from the water of the Donau 
canal a vibrio which he called Vibrio Danubicus. This resembles the chol- 
era vibrio fully in its morphology. As a distinguishing character it was 
found that this vibrio, in thinly planted plates, forms flat, superficial colo- 
nies having irregularly rounded margins and other slight differences; also 
the pathogenic action upon mice inoculatedsubcutaneously, and the ease with 
which guinea-pigs are infected by way of the respiratory passages. It is 
worthy of note that the day after the sample was taken a man was taken sick 
with cholera who had worked on the Donau the day before—on the principal 
stream at a place far below the junction of the canal. Dunbar (1893) found 
vibrios in the Elbe, in the Rhine, in the Pegnitz, and in the Amstel at Amster- 
dam. These presented no decided characters by which he was able to differ- 
entiate them from the cholera vibrio. The most careful comparative investi- 
gations did not lead to the discovery of any points of difference which had 
not already been observed in genuine cholera cultures. Everything, there- 
fore, indicated that these were genuine cholera bacilli, especially as these 
vibrios disappeared from the rivers when cholera ceased to prevail. It was 
first possible through an observation of Kutscher’s to differentiate a portion 
of these water bacteria, and certain vibrios isolated from the discharges of 
ersons suspected of having cholera from cultures of the cholera spirillum. 
n the presence of oxygen, at asuitable temperature, they give off a greenish- 
white phosphorescence. 
‘As phosphorescence has never been observed in undoubted cholera cul- 
tures, we can assert with tolerable certainty that such phosphorescent vibrios 
are not genuine cholera bacteria. But as this phosphorescent property was 
inconstant in thirty-eight out of sixty-eight cultures, Dunbar believes that 
some reserve must be exercised in accepting this as evidence that these are 
not genuine cholera vibrios. Maassen (1894) givesas a further distinguishing 
character of these phosphorescent vibrios the fact that they form a strong, 
usually wrinkled pellicle in bouillon, of proper alkalinity, containing gly- 
cerin or carbohydrates (cane sugar, lactose); also that in such media the 
formation of indol and a subsequent return to an alkaline reaction may be 
observed. 
‘‘ As already stated, Sanarelli isolated from Seine water a considerable 
number of vibrios, and among them four—viz.: one from St. Cloud, Point- 
du-Jour, Gennevilliers No. 5, and Versailles (Seine), which after twenty-four 
hours gave a distinct indol reaction and were more or less pathogenic for 
guinea-pigs (the one from St. Cloud was also pathogenic for pigeons). Ivan- 
off (1893) Geaeribes a vibrio which he isolated from the feeces of a patient with 
typhoid fever. Butas the discharges had been mixed with Berlin hydrant 
water, Ivdnoff admits the possibility that his vibrio came from this water. 
It closely resembles the cholera vibrio, but is distinguished by its colonies in 
gelatin plates, which, at the end of twenty-four to thirty-six hours, in place 
of the usual coarse granulation of cholera colonies shows a distinct formation 
of filaments. Morphologically the vibrio is distinguished by a decided ten- 
dency to preserve the spiral form, and especially by its size. Celli and San- 
tori (1893) describe a Vibrio romanus, which they isolated from twelve 
undoubted cases of cholera. This does not give the indol reaction, is not 
pathogenic for animals, and does not grow in bouillon or agar at 37° C. 
This is considered by the authors named an atypical variety of the cholera 
vibrio, especially as the distinguishing characters did not prove to be perma- 
nent. After eight months’ cultivation the cultures gave the indol reaction, but 
the pathogenic power was still almost absent. Recently Chantemesse (1894) 
has described a vibrio which he found in the spring of 1894 during the chol- 
era epidemic at Lisbon. This differed in many particulars from the genuine 
cholera vibrio, resembling more closely the vibrio of Finkler-Prior. As in 
the Lisbon epidemic, with a large number taken sick, only one death occurred, 
and in view of the results of the bacteriological examination, Chantemesse 
