94 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
yet described “two distinct swine plagues” in this country. 
Unfortunately, you do not give the date of Dr. Salmon’s commu¬ 
nication, so I cannot tell whether it was written before or after 
my individual communication upon the “ Etiological Moment 
in American Swine Plagues,” which was issued December last, 
and of which a copy was sent to Dr. Salmon. In that paper my 
position was positively stated and I still adhere to it. I there 
endeavored to show why so many ideas had been promulgated 
about this disease where authors had endeavored to characterize 
it by its pathological lesions. And I also endeavored to show 
that no one of these lesions, except those of the lymph gland, 
could be called pathognomonic. It is no wonder that Dr. Salmon 
is trying to explain his unexplainable inconsistencies, and, as far 
as I can judge from his descriptions, I still claim that the Ne" 
braska disease is identical with that described by him in 1885, 
and that there is some mistake about his description of the germ. 
As you know my paper on the “ Etiological Moment in 
Swine Plague,” will you please publish it in justice to me, as 
well as to show my real position towards the paper on Hueppe’s 
communication published in your issue of March, 1887. If Dr. 
Salmon’s letter to you was written subsequent to my publication 
of December last, he simply shows his intellectual dishonesty and 
inconsistent character when he says I have “not yet told us 
whether the germ is motile or non-motile,” as in that paper 
I distinctly said it was , “ all authorities to the contrary.” The 
latter remark was directed at Schuetz of Berlin, as, if his germ is 
“ non-motile ” in fluid culture, it is the only essential point of 
biological differentiation between our micro-organisms. I am 
sincerely obliged to Dr. Salmon for calling my attention to the 
mistake made by Dr. Bowhill with regard to “ ech. gigas,” 
calling it “ ascaris suilla.” I did not give the parasite (as such) 
even a moment’s thought at the time, nor have I since, my whole 
attention being called to the great similarity of the lesions it 
caused in the small intestine to those often seen in swine plague 
in the large, but not necessary to it. Dr. Bowhill took down 
Cobbold and wrote the description from him. I did not even 
look at it or the worm, being very busy on other matters. I make 
