SOFT SORE. 109 
a bubo does not show the organisms having the above 
characters, it is probably safe to say that the case is not 
one of plague. 
SOFT SORE. 
A very strong case has been made out in favour of 
the view that the bacillus described by Unna and by 
Ducrey is actually the cause of soft sore, though the 
proof does not rest upon the solid ground demanded by 
Koch. The bacillus has never been cultivated outside 
the body, and the chief proof of its pathogenicity rest 
upon the fact of its invariable presence in true soft sores. 
It is hardly correct to say that it is invariably absent 
from other sores, unless, indeed, we extend somewhat our 
conception of what a soft sore really is; for the author 
has found bacilli which were indistinguishable from 
these in sores which were exactly like those which 
follow herpes preputialis, though more severe than is 
generally the case. But it is quite possible that future 
research will show that the bacillus varies greatly in 
virulence, and that it is only under certain circum- 
stances that it produces typical soft sores. At present 
all we can say about the diagnostic value of the organ- 
ism is that its presence in the secretion from an ulcer 
affords strong evidence that the case is really one of 
chancroid, and that its absence almost certainly nullifies 
such a diagnosis. It is scarcely necessary to say that 
syphilis and soft sore (or gonorrhcea and soft sore) may 
be inoculated at the same time, and the lesions appro- 
priate to both diseases may be present simultaneously. 
The bacillus in question is a short straight rod, less 
than a quarter the length of the tubercle bacillus, and 
