INFECTION AND IMMUNITr. 4] 1 



nounced constitutional reactions, and that during this 

 period, and for a short time following, they possess pro- 

 tection against the invasion of the virulent bacteria 

 themselves. This observation has, moreover, not been 

 confined to those eases in which injections of the pro- 

 ducts of growth have been followed by inoculations with 

 the bacteria by which they were produced, but what is 

 still more interesting, and confirmatory of Buchner's 

 view, it is claimed that a sort of protection against 

 certain specific infections can also be afforded to animals 

 by the injection into them of cultures of entirely dif- 

 ferent species of bacteria, or their products, and that in 

 some cases these are not of necessity of the disease-pro- 

 ducing variety. For instance, Emmerich and Mattel ' 

 claim to have rendered rabbits insusceptible to anthrax 

 through injections into them of cultures of the strepto- 

 coccus of erysipelas. 



This, they claim, is not due to any antagonism 

 between the organisms themselves, for in culture experi- 

 ments the two organisms grew well together, without 

 any alteration in their pathogenic properties, but rather 

 to the production of a tissue-change by which resistance 

 to the inroads of the virulent bacilli was established. 

 Emmei-ich and Mattel interpret this " reactive tissue- 

 change " as a power acquired by the integral cells of 

 the body, of eliminating a product that is detrimental 

 to the pathogenic activity of the anthrax bacilli. 



Pawlowsky,^ who obtained similar results from the 

 introduction into the animal of cultures of the bacillus 

 prodigiosus, of staphylococcus pyogenes aureus, and of 

 the micrococcus lanceolatus, believes them to be due to 



1 Emmerich nud Mattel: Fortschritte der Medizin, 1887, p. 633. 



2 Pawlowski : Virchow's Arch., vol. cvili. p. 494. 



