EDITORIAL. 
545 
The other articles of which I speak, and 'to which I would refer all inter¬ 
ested m the matter, as time will only permit of my presenting the conclusions I 
nave drawn from them, are : 
TJ , “ A Contribution to Our Knowledge of the Cause of Swine-plague, and its 
Relation to Connected Bacteriological Operations,” by Dr. P. Frosch (Zeitschrift 
fhr Hygiene, vol. 9, page 235). Editors, Dr. R. Koch and Dr. C. Flugge. 
Smith W n °” Kn “ Wled ? e of the A “erican Swine-plague,” by Dr. Theobald 
Smith Chief of the Bacteriological Laboratory of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
try. (Zeitschrift Mr Hygiene, vol. 10, No. iii, page 480.) 
“ Reply to the Preceding Work of Dr. Th. Smith, npon ‘ Our Knowledge of 
American Swine-plague,’” by Dr. P. Frosch, Assistant in the Institute of Hy- 
plg^OO ) TWrSitJ ° f Berlin ‘ ( Zeitschrift Hygiene, vol. 10. No. iii, 
. ,A l8 ° at * m ® etin g of Scottish Metropolitan Veterinary Medical Society, held 
m Edinburgh, February 25th, 1891, Mr. Thomas Bowhill, M.R.C.V.S., read a 
paper upon “Swine Fever.” Vide Veterinary Journal, May, 1891. To sum up• 
Jeffries concludes that Billings’ “Swine-plague,” and Smith’s “Hog Chol- 
Gia germs are identical, and differ from those of the disease he has investigated • 
an at cultures Smith sent him of his “ Swine-plague” germ are identical with 
the disease germs that he (Jeffries) has been studying, which produce a septic 
pneumonia m swine that they can communicate to calves, and very probably to 
lambs, sheep and other animals. 
. . * D Sh °^’ the muc h- va unted ‘‘ Swine-plague ” is simply a septic direase which 
is not peculiar to swine by any means. It is caused by one of a large group of 
bi-po ar organisms, capable of producing similar symptoms in such small exper¬ 
iment animals as are susceptible to them. Jeffries concludes by saying : “But 
while two germs of this class are known to infest hogs in the United States, there 
may be others in Europe, e. g.., ‘ Wild seuche.’ ” 
I think that Jeffries’ work is particularly accurate and very valuable, and 
n surprised that it has not attracted a great deal of attention, although it does 
not seem to have done so. s 
Dr. Frosch, in his first article, compares the work done by Billings with the 
work supposed to be Salmon’s, and draws the following conclusions: 
are identical 116 baCteriUm ° f Salmon ’ s bog cholera and Billings’ swine-plague 
2, ~ T1 ^ e ® ai “ e ls the cause of the American swine-plague, while the proof 
an etiological relation of the bacterium of Salmon’s swine-plague to the first 
stated ^ t0 “ SeC ° nd PlagUe ° f Uke “ tent ’ haS DOt y6t been sufflcie °tly demon- 
®;“‘‘T ha ‘ tbe bacte . ri ““ is identical with Selander’s schweine-pest bacte- 
i.um (Selander’s sehwe.ne-pest being the swine disease of Sweden and Den- 
TV’ U ? from the bacterium of the German schweine-seuche, 
chicken cholera, rabbit septicemia and ferret plague. 
4.—“ The ferret disease is caused by a separate kind of bacterium, and cam 
not be grouped with the rest.” 
Dr. Smith’s is a reply to Dr. Frosch’s first article. 
Dr. Frosch's second paper is a reply to Dr. Smith, 
