SCIENCE 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 1885. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



Dr. E. Ray Lankester writes to Nature 

 of Dec. 25 a letter denouncing Koch's claims 

 in regard to the cholera bacillus, and denying 

 his right to any more knowledge in regard 

 to bacteria " than that which an industrious 

 worker may be expected to have gained in the 

 course of very special observations in regard 

 to a limited class of these organisms (the 

 pathogenic class) , extending over a few years. ' ' 

 Fortunately, Koch's reputation rests upon a 

 more solid foundation than that which is con- 

 ceded to him by some English and American 

 writers, and his work is not likely to lose any 

 of its value by accusations of want of knowl- 

 edge. The writer in Nature gives a very dis- 

 torted diagram of various organisms, — the 

 bacillus of glanders, the bacillus subtilis, etc., 

 — and lays especial stress upon the fact that 

 Koch said nothing of the comma bacillus be- 

 fore reaching India, and that in Egypt an 

 entirely distinct and straight organism was 

 claimed as the cause of cholera. This is a 

 distinct accusation, which does not seem to us 

 to be justified by Koch's reports. Whilst in 

 Egypt, the German commission found several 

 organisms, one of which might be the specific 

 cause of the disease ; but no actual proof of 

 the fact was offered or suggested. It was be- 

 cause they were in doubt, that they asked per- 

 mission to carry on their investigations in 

 India ; and it was only after they had reached 

 that country, and had had opportunities for 

 further investigation, that special stress was 

 laid upon the comma bacillus. The case, so 

 far as Koch is concerned, is summed up in our 

 columns of Dec. 19, 1884. His opponents 

 nnVht well choose an advocate less biassed 

 than Dr. Lankester. The disproval of Koch's 

 theories must come from actual work upon the 

 subject, and not from literary efforts. 



No. 103. — 1885. 



Later reports of the work of Drs. Klein 

 and Gibbes (the English cholera commission) 

 in India justify their conclusions more than 

 what we had seen when speaking of it last 

 week. Their results are summed up in the 

 Gazette of India for Nov. 28, 1884 (Lancet, 

 Jan. 3, 1885), and are as follows: 1°. They 

 find ' comma bacilli,' so called, in other dis- 

 eases than cholera, as epidemic diarrhoea, d}*s- 

 entery, and intestinal catarrh, associated with 

 phthisis. 2°. They did not find the comma 

 bacilli in t}-pical cases of cholera in any thing 

 like the numbers claimed by Koch : they never 

 approached the appearance of a ' pure culture ' 

 in the ileum. 3°. The}' did not find the comma 

 bacilli in the tissues of the intestines, or else- 

 where, as Koch did. 4°. Klein was unable to 

 discover that the comma bacilli differed from 

 any other putrefactive organism under cultiva- 

 tion. 5°. They found peculiar-shaped bacilli, 

 very small and straight, in the mucus-corpus- 

 cles found in mucus-flakes removed from the 

 intestine soon after death from cholera : they 

 found these same bacilli always, even when 

 the comma bacilli were not discovered. 6°. 

 These bacilli do not behave in any peculiar 

 way under cultivation, and are not to be found 

 in the tissues of the intestines, or elsewhere. 

 7°. They did not find any bacteria of any kind 

 in the blood, or in any other tissue. 8°. Many 

 experiments gave the following results : (a) 

 Mice, rats, cats, and monke} T s were fed with 

 rice-water stools, with vomitus, with mucus- 

 flakes from the ileum, both fresh and after 

 having been kept for twenty-four hours (the 

 animals remained in good health) ; (b) Inocu- 

 lations with recent and old cultures of the 

 comma bacillus, and of the small straight 

 bacillus, as well as with mucus-flakes, were 

 made into the subcutaneous tissue, into the 

 peritoneal cavhVy, into the jugular vein, and 

 into the cavity of the small and large intestine 

 of rabbits, cats, and monke} 7 s ; but the ani- 

 mals remained perfectly well and normal. 



