1889.] Schweine-Seuche and the "Swine Plague.'' 893 
identical with the real American swine plague, but is really 
nothing more or less than the " Wild-seuche," a disease differen- 
tiated by Bollinger from anthrax by the absence of B. anthracis, 
though he did not discover its germ, the microscopes and 
methods of investigation not being equal to that task at the 
I said that the Schweine-seuche was not the swine-plague 
(" Hog Cholera ") because, first, enormous oedema and deforma- 
tion of the body thereby does not occur in swine plague ; 
second, because the tendency to haemorrhagic effusions is. not a 
constant phenomenon, though frequently present, but seldom to 
such an extended degree as in the German disease; third, 
because the so-called " characteristic " intestinal lesions seem to 
be entirely absent. 
Hence it seems to me that my conclusion is correct, that the 
organism discovered by Loeffler in swine, and the disease result- 
ing from its action, has no important relation whatever to the 
origin and nature of the cosmopolitan swine plague. 
It seems to me that the above language is plain enough to be 
understood by anybody. 
That even foreigners can read the English language more 
correctly than one native to a country where it is spoken, I quote 
from the Jahresbericht uber pathogenen Microorganismen, 1889; 
p. 1 30, where the reviewer of my work says : " While in a 
previous work I had the opinion that the American swine plague 
and the German Schweine-seuche were identical diseases, in this 
book (my Swine Plague) I most emphatically contradict this 
opinion, and claim the Schweine-seuche to be identical with the 
Wild-seuche," which latter assertion the reviewer questions. 
Having thus most completely disposed of the careless inac- 
curacies of my critics, I will say that I am still of the same opinion, 
and it remains for German observers to show that I am not correct. 
It will be remembered that the observations of Bleisch and 
Fiedeler extended over fifty-two diseased swine, not one of which 
presented anything abnormal in the intestinal canal. I will not 
take the trouble to refer to the exact number of swine examined 
by Loeffler and Schiitz, but it was about ten. 
