1102 Dr. D. E. Salmons Claims respecting the [November, l 
the disease in due time in healthy pigs (see history of exper- 
mental pig C on pages 37, 38 and 39, or pages 347 and 348 oi 
said reports). The quantity of bacteria employed in infecting 
the sterilized culture-fluids was so small, compared with the bulk 
of the latter, as to render them harmless by dilution, had the bac- 
teria not multiplied in the flasks. After three days’ (from Sept 
23d to Sept. 26th, 1878) cultivation the fluids swarmed with the 
identical bacteria with which they had been infected, while no 
others could be found by close and searching microscopical ex- 
amination. Staining fluids, it is true, were at that time, 
ber, 1878, not employed, but even should these cultures have been 
contaminated to a minimal extent, the validity of the proof that 
they reproduced the disease would thereby not be affected 
Moreover, I have given abundant proof in my reports that à 
vegetation of putrefaction bacteria, the very ones most likely to 
intrude into a culture fluid, destroys, if taking place in the same 
medium, the pathogenic properties of the swine-plague D 
a fact admitted by Dr. Salmon himself in his later reports. AS 
the disease produced by inoculation with an exceedingly sml 
quantity of the cultivated material was typical swine-plagus ê 
more decisive proof of the bacteritic nature of that disease cal 
not be furnished. Still, although further proof is not realy 
needed, I may yet mention that an inoculation with blood seri 
from diseased lungs, after it had been freed from the swine-plag" 
bacteria, remained ineffective, notwithstanding that every Inne 
lation with the same material, if not freed from SWYs © 
bacteria, invariably took effect (see history of eprint 
A, inoculated Oct. 14th, 1878, pages 38 and 39 of special ad. 
No. 12, and pages 348 and 349 of the annual report for ! » 
But, while I will not relinquish my claim of being reall 
has proven the bacteritic nature of swine-plague, I Oe 
admit any mistake in the description of the bacterium: a 
sufficient instrument then at my command, a $ a 
stand, and three Hartnack objectives, a No. 2, 4 pee 
No. 8, made the coccus-chains appear like moniliform ( The 
rods. Hence my error in naming them bacilli. Altho sega 
since corrected this mistake in the nomenclature in  ™ s 
February 28th, 1880 (see page 60 of special report me 1a 
_ Page 412 and fol. of the commissioner's annual repo ag 
_ frequent repetition of my observations has not forced me 
