1 882.] A Pathogenic Schizophyte of the Hog. 199 



correct the same in my next report to the Commissioner of Agri- 

 culture, two years ago, in as plain language as I can command ; 

 but not knowing at that time the spuriousness of Professor Klein's 

 bacillus, I did not say anything about it. Still, a colaborer — it 

 will not be necessary to give his name — does not appear to be 

 satisfied, misconstrues my language, and yet insists that I call the 

 swine-plague Schizophyte a Bacillus suis. But enough of this. 

 It widely differs from a bacillus as denned by Cohn. One of its 

 most characteristic features consists in its forming zooglcea-masses 

 or coccoglia, which, according to Cohn, a bacillus never does. It 

 also does not form straight and motionless rods, nor is its effect 

 directly poisoning, or causing decomposition, like that of Bacillus 

 anthracis, but mostly, if not entirely, brought about in a mechan- 

 ical way, by its mere presence, and by a withdrawal from the 

 animal organism of such elements as are needed for its existence, 

 its metamorphoses, and its propagation. To put it in a few words, 

 it acts- like a veritable parasite. I discarded the name Bacillus as 

 soon as I discovered my mistake, and have simply called it Swine- 

 plague Schizophyte or Swine-plague Microbe, leaving it to others, 

 better versed in the classification of Schizophytes, to give it an 

 appropriate name. 



About two years ago I obtained the means, a large Beck's stand 

 and aTolles' T V homogeneous immersion objective, which enabled 

 me not only to make a more thorough investigation, but also to 

 distinguish, as to shape, form, size, and undergoing-changes, the 

 swine-plague Schizophytes from other Schizophytes classed under 

 the various heads of Micrococci, Bacteria and Bacilli, and par- 

 ticularly from those which invariably make their appearance in 

 all animal fluids and tissues when putrefaction or decomposition 

 is setting in. Still, the amplification to be obtained by eyepiecing 

 without any loss of definition — about 925 to 1000 diameters — 

 proved to be insufficient. Certain characteristics, which I had 

 reason to suppose are existing, and of which I could obtain only 

 occasional glimpses, could not be seen, or were to be seen only in* 

 an imperfect manner. I therefore requested Mr. Tolles to make 

 for my special work an objective which, if possible, would give as 

 good and sharp definition with an amplification of 1 500 diame- 

 ters as the T V in my possession with 925. Mr. Tolles has nobly 

 responded, and it is but just to say that the objective he made, 

 nominally a <fr t but in reality close up to a T V, is not only equal, 



