280 
The “ Bottle-Bacillus ” 
by which the organism is commonly known. It will also be noted that 
Malassez distinguishes three types of the organism, a distinction which 
is based on the size of the “spores”; further that he believes that the 
ovoid forms which he also observed have nothing to do with the 
“champignon de la pelade” but belong to a special kind of parasite. He 
also thought it necessary to discuss the question of the identity or not 
of his “ champignon de la pelade ” with the parasite previously detected 
by Gruby (1843), the “ Microsporon avdouini.” 
In another paper Malassez (1874 (a), p. 451) describes the parasite 
found in Pityriasis, which, although having a great resemblance to the 
“champignon de la pelade,” differs therefrom, in his opinion, in some 
points, for he states (p. 463) that “ Ils se distinguent de celles de la 
pelade en ce que ces dernieres sont habituellement spheriques et plus 
volumineuses ; de celles des autres champignons connus en ce que ces 
dernieres possedent des tubes de mycelium.” 
Although the organism has been more fully described by Unna 
(1894), and by Sabouraud (1897, 1902), there is, as yet, no unanimity as 
to the part it plays in pathology. Its discoverer, Malassez (1874 (a), 
p. 463), was inclined to see in the “ champignon de la pityriasis simple ” 
the cause of the condition : “Ils paraissent jouer dans la pathogenie du 
pityriasis le meme role que les autres parasites dans celles des affections 
cutanees generalement considerees comme de nature parasitaire.” 
I cannot find a definite statement in Unna’s papers of his view 
regarding the part played by this organism, but it seems to me, that he 
considers it to be a mere saprophytic inhabitant of the skin. Sabouraud, 
on the other hand, has apparently changed his former view on the 
“ Bacille-bouteille.” In his fh-st paper (1897) he says, “On peut 
rencontrer accidentellement une dizaine d’especes microbiennes differ- 
entes, parmi lesquelles deux sont constantes. Ce sont le Bacille- 
bouteille de Unna,.et qui parait n’avoir aucune valeur patbogene.” 
In his second publication, when speaking about the relationship 
between the Bottle-bacillus and Pityriasis, he says, “ Et sa presence 
aux points memes ou Ton voit les couches epidermiques se diver, 
semble affirmer son role causal dans le clivage meme et l’exfoliation de 
l’epiderme.” 
Whitfield (1907) also seems inclined to ascribe a pathogenic role to 
the bottle-bacillus, in Pityriasis: “No one can work at the distribution 
of Pityriasis alba, and the Bottle-bacillus, without being struck by their 
invariable association,” whereas Malcolm Morris (1908) considers that 
“the role played by the Bottle-bacillus requires further elucidation.” 
