EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
271 
received, and the other morbid conditions with which it has 
been confounded and mixed up. From the circumstance 
that the skin is frequently discoloured, it has been designated 
the 4 red disease,’ ‘ red soldier,’ f purples,’ f blue dis¬ 
ease, 5 ‘ blue sickness;’ but this discolouration is observed 
in other derangements of the pig, and is not constant even 
in this malady. It has also received the name of £ hog 
cholera ’ in America, and f swine plague ’ there and on the 
continent of Europe. Until recently veterinary pathologists 
have classed it with the anthracic diseases, and it has been 
so described. In .America it has also been known as the 
‘ intestinal ’ or f enteric fever of swine,’ and since 1865— 
in which year it was investigated by Dr. Budd—it has been 
designated £ typhoid fever ’ in this country, and as such is 
alluded to in Privy Council orders. But there can be no 
doubt whatever that it presents but little resemblance, either 
clinically or pathologically, to typhoid fever in man, and 
the name is therefore not only inappropriate, but is 
dangerously misleading when its fatality and extreme degree 
of infectiousness are considered. Recent investigators have 
abundantly proved the erroneousness of Budd’s designation, 
but the peculiar characteristics of the malady have proved 
an obstacle to its receiving a name sufficiently explicit to 
denote its nature. Klein names it c pneumo-enteritis/ and 
other observers £ bronchial catarrh ’ and £ catarrhal pneu¬ 
monia.’ Admitting that it is a disease sui generis , yet if 
pushed to find its analogue in the list of specific fevers of 
man, we would be inclined to compare it with measles, with 
which it has more features in common, perhaps, than any 
other ; and, indeed, by this name ( rougeole ) it has long been 
known in France. 
“ It is one of the most destructive diseases to which pigs 
are liable, and, for lack of a more distinctive popular title, 
it merits that of e plague ’—as a plague it truly is. As 
e swine plague, 5 its serious character would be far better 
indicated than by the improper name of ‘ typhoid. 5 55 
According to the different views of various observers we 
have as alternative terms to the one typhoid fever, which we 
allow to be in many points objectionable, pneumo-enteritis, 
