198 A Pathogenic Schizophyte of the Hog. [March, 



plague. I procured a No. 8 Hartnack stand, with three eye- 

 pieces and three Hartnack objectives, a I inch, a % inch, and a 

 four-system \ inch, with correction and immersion. Of course, 

 such an instrument was not at all what was needed, but it was the- 

 best I could get, and, to tell the truth, the best I was then able to 

 handle. It soon revealed the presence of microscopic organisms 

 — Schizophytes, or, if preferred, Microbes or Bacteria — in the 

 morbid products of the disease, and in the blood of the diseased 

 and dead animals, but its definition and its magnifying power, 

 about 800 diameters, were not sufficient to show the character- 

 istics of the Schizophytes, and to distinguish the same under all 

 circumstances from other bacteria similar in size. Consequently 

 I made several, under the circumstances excusable, errors. If 

 the light happened to be very good and well adjusted, a 

 micrococcus chain appeared as a moniliform rod, and if the 

 light was not very good, as I am sorry to say was very often 

 the case, a Micrococcus chain could not be distinguished 

 from a rod-shaped Bacterium or a Bacillus. All this was 

 very much of a drawback ; still I became soon convinced 

 that in the morbid products of the disease and in the blood 

 of the diseased and dead hogs, I had to deal with a specific 

 Schizophyte, which does not occur in the blood, etc., of other 

 animals not affected with swine plague, and is entirely different 

 from Bacterium termo, because I observed whenever putrefaction 

 set in, and Bacterium termo made its appearance, my swine plague 

 Schizophytes commenced to disappear, and disappeared in about 

 the same ratio in which Bacterium termo increased in numbers. 

 Being unfortunately not sufficiently familiar with the classification 

 of Schizophytes, and the distinguishing characteristics of micro- 

 cocci, bacteria, bacilli, etc., as laid down by Cohn and others, the 

 inadequacy of my microscope caused me to commit a blunder, 

 for which I have to apologize. Professor Klein in England, in 

 his investigation of swine plague, also found a Schizophyte, which 

 he called a " Bacillus:' Not knowing then, as I do now, that his 

 bacillus, seen with better instruments than that at my command, 

 was an intruder, and not at home where found, and having no 

 doubt whatever that he had seen the identical Schizophyte which 

 I saw and found in every case of swine plague, I proposed the 

 name Bacillus suis. As soon as Cohn's classification of Schizo- 

 phytes fell into my hands I saw my mistake, and endeavored to 



