December 17, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
483 
top of Dundry Hill unfolds an extensive view of the 
Bristol Channel, hacked by the mountainous scenery 
of Monmouthshire and the Principality. 
All around spring— 
“ The living herbs, profusely wild 
O’er all the deep green earth, beyond the power 
Of botanist to number up their tribes.” 
Such is a very brief and inadequate introduction 
to a neighbourhood teeming with interest and beauty, 
which few other places in our native country can 
equal, and to which the author can honestly recom¬ 
mend a lengthened visit. 
In lieu of this the following description of the 
pharmacological treasures found in this locality may 
prove to some of our pharmaceutical brethren a 
source of pleasure, if not of instruction. 
(To be continued.) 
THE CHOLERA FUNGUS. 
BY M. C. COOKE, M.A. 
The revival of this subject, after some months of 
silence, is to be attributed to the publication, in Cal¬ 
cutta, of the first report on the microscopic objects 
found in cholera evacuations by Mr. Timothy Ri¬ 
chards Lewis, M.B. It will be remembered by our 
readers that certain theories . have been promulgated 
regarding the cause of cholera, and mainly that of its 
fungoid origin, as advocated by Professor Hallier, of 
Jena. In order to test the value of this theory, it 
was resolved that certain Government officers should 
make the necessary observations and experiments in 
India, and report results. The first instalment of 
such report is now before us. 
It is hardly necessary to epitomize Dr. Hallier’s 
theory except to state that, from his examination of 
cholera evacuations, he came to the conclusion that 
cholera was produced by a species of fungus belong¬ 
ing to the group of smuts called Ustilagines, to which 
the common smut of corn and grass, and the more 
imposing smut of maize, belongs. At first, Dr. Hal¬ 
lier referred this fungus to the genus Urocystis, and 
considered it to be closely allied to that species 
which attacks the lye in Europe, and which he be¬ 
lieved was parasitic on rice in India. As soon as 
the Professor’s treatise arrived in this country we 
made bold to challenge his facts, either that Urocys¬ 
tis spores would cause any choleraic disturbance in 
the human subject, or that any species of Urocystis 
had ever been found as a parasite on the rice-plant 
in India. Subsequently the Jena Professor shifted 
liis ground, and, though still adhering to his fungus 
theory, renounced Urocystis, and maintained the 
“ cysts ” as fungus spores. The basis for the theory, 
at least so far as we comprehend it, is, that bodies 
can be found in the growing tissue of rice-plants 
which the author regards as identical with the cysts 
found in cholera evacuations ; hence that cholera is 
generated by the consumption of rice in a diseased 
or smutted condition. 
Common sense naturally inquires, Are the “ cho¬ 
lera cysts” the cause of cholera? are they found 
under any other circumstances ? what are they ? 
are they found in choleraic discharges in India ? are 
they found in the growing rice-plant ? and what con¬ 
nection is there between rice-eating and cholera? 
To answer some of these queries Mr. Lewis has I 
applied himself with great zeal, ability, and, in our 
opinion, success. 
It is impossible, even -were it necessary, to follow 
the experiments in detail, and to give all the reasons 
on which the conclusions are based. It will be 
enough to indicate what are the fair deductions to be 
made from the experiments already made. The 
caution contained in the following paragraph cannot 
be too strongly insisted on, and will serve as intro¬ 
duction to the “results —“In spite of more than 
ordinary care, very different forms of life will make 
their appearance in substances which are derived 
from the same source under conditions which seem 
to be identical, and that too in very simple mix¬ 
tures. Consequently, the greatest caution must be 
exercised in estimating the importance, or otherwise, 
of any peculiar manifestations of vitality which may 
be observed in substances associated with disease.” 
Had this caution been kept in view by some of those 
who have experimented on the cultivation of muce- 
dinous fungi, for instance, it is probable that we 
should have been spared some few assumptions which 
have obtained currency as facts. 
The “results,” as indicated in this first report, 
are, “ That no ‘ cysts ’ exist in choleraic discharges 
which are not found under other conditions.” That 
is to say, the cholera cysts figured by Professor 
Hallier are not always obtainable from cholera dis¬ 
charges, are not confined to cholera, nor even to dis¬ 
eased conditions of the intestines, but may be culti¬ 
vated from the stool of perfectly healthy persons. 
“ That cysts or sporangia of fungi are but very 
rarely found under any circumstances in alvine dis¬ 
charges.” 
“ That no special fungus has been developed in 
cholera stools, the fungus described by Hallier being 
certainly not confined to such stools.” 
The experiments instituted to test the observation 
as to the inoculability of rice-plants have as yet 
not been satisfactory, consequently no conclusions 
have been arrived at on the matter. 
“ That the still and active conditions of the ob¬ 
served animalcula are not peculiar to this disease, 
but may be developed in nitrogenous material even 
outside the body.” 
“ That the hakes and corpuscles in rice-water 
stools do not consist of epithelium nor of its debris, 
but that then formation appears to depend upon the 
effusion of blood plasma, and that the ‘ peculiar 
bodies ’ of Parkes, found therewith, correspond very 
closely in their microscopic and chemical characters, 
as well as in their manifestations of vitality, to the 
corpuscles which are known to form in such fluid. 
These are generally, to a greater or less degree, 
associated with blood-cells, even when the presence 
of such is not suspected, especially as the disease 
tends towards a fatal termination, when the latter 
have been frequently seen to replace the former 
altogether.” 
“ That no sufficient evidence exists for consider¬ 
ing that vibriones, and such-like organisms, prevail 
to a greater extent in the discharges from persons 
affected with cholera than in the discharges of other 
persons, diseased or healthy; but that the vibriones, 
bacteria and monads (micrococcus) may not be pecu¬ 
liar in their nature, for these do vary, may not be 
the product of a peculiar combination of circum¬ 
stances, and able to give origin to peculiar pheno¬ 
mena in a predisposed person—is ‘ not proven. 
Hence it seems pretty clear that the fundamental 
