1883.] New Researches on Canine Madness . 61 
irregularity in the action of the bite of mad dogs, since one 
bite may convey a portion of the mucus into the wound, 
whilst another may not. 
In accordance with M. Pasteur, M. Bert remarks that the 
saliva of a mad dog, if it does not communicate rabies, may 
still prove fatal by producing serious local injuries. Out of 
fifteen dogs inoculated in 1878 seven were attacked with 
suppurations, which in four cases proved fatal. Hence the 
secretions and tissues of rabid animals appear to have septic 
properties over and above the special rabic virus. If the 
slaver of a mad dog was filtered through plaster the filtrate 
was found inoffensive, whilst the residual solid matter com- 
municated rabies. 
In connection with this disease there is a question which 
urgently calls for investigation in some country where such 
researches are possible. It is said that the bite of the 
skunk, when the animal is in its normal condition, invari- 
ably, or at least generally, brings on rabies. Is this actually 
the case ? If so, does this dangerous property extend to 
the skunk of Java, or is it peculiar to the American forms? 
Does idiopathic rabies occur in any other of the Mustelidse ? 
These questions are of the greater importance as dogs, in 
attacking weasels, polecats, &c., may easily happen to re- 
ceive a bite. I have even heard it asserted that rabies does 
not originate among dogs, but is derived from some animal 
of the weasel group — a very hazardous assertion. We do 
not even know whether this disease ever originates sponta- 
neously in any of the Felidae, Hyaenidae, or Ursidae. 
The recent investigations of MM. Pasteur and Bert lead 
to certain important conclusions : — 
1. The bite of a rabid animal is more dangerous than is 
commonly supposed, since if it fails to communicate 
rabies it may occasion other serious affections. 
2. The bite of any animal not in a rabid state has to be 
regarded not as a simple wound, but as more or less 
poisonous, since the saliva is always liable to intro- 
duce microbia into the tissues and the fluids of the 
animal or person bitten. This conclusion fully agrees 
with the results of common observation. 
3. The faCt that a dog which has bitten any person does 
not itself die of rabies, or does not even exhibit the 
more marked symptoms of that disease, is no proof 
that it may not have been slightly rabid, and have 
communicated the virus to the person bitten. 
The question will now be asked, Do the recent studies of 
M, Pasteur hold out any promise of deliverance from the 
