COMPARATIVE MERITS OP VACCINATION. 591 
reluctance to affect the human system. Lastly, in the em¬ 
ployment of animal vaccination there was observed very de¬ 
cided febrile reaction coincident with the rise, development, 
and decline of the areola, and the disease resulted in an indel¬ 
ible cicatrix or scar of a peculiar and well-defined type. In 
these last particulars, also, Dr. Martin found vaccination 
with humanised lymph to be defective, and laying special 
stress on the characters of a vaccine cicatrix, he has inserted 
in his report a reprint of Dr. D. Decanteleu’s illustration in 
his Monographic sur les Cicatrices de la Vaccine. From several 
years’ experience in vaccinating, and from having repeatedly 
and carefully watched instances of the various forms of 
vaccinia, I readily endorse Dr. Martin’s preference for animal 
vaccination, and corroborate the accuracy of his observations. 
Not merely in my own practice, but in that of many others, 
I have noted this tendency of vaccinia induced by humanised 
lymph (the Jennerian method) to run a rapid course, the 
vesicles, to be easily ruptured, the crust to be of much smaller 
size than the vesicles and to fall off early, and the cicatrix to form 
a very imperfect mark. The character of the cicatrix is con¬ 
sidered by British authorities to be an important indication of 
the progress of the disease and of its protective power against 
smallpox; but a reference to Dr Martin’s footnote (pp. 28 
to 31) shows that the definition of a typical cicatrix given in 
Dr. Seaton’s Handbook and in other British works does not 
agree with that of Dr. Decanteleu nor with our author’s views. 
According to these the foveae (specified by British writers as 
important) are indicative of an imperfect evolution of the 
disease, being the remains of sudoriparous ducts, whereas a 
typical vaccine cicatrix resulting from a constitutional 
affection and from a thorough local destruction of tissue is a 
depression showing a u smooth centre surrounded by rays or 
bands of connective tissue.” The production of such a 
cicatrix is to be understood by reference to the plates accom¬ 
panying Braidwood and Yacher’s Second Report on the Life 
History of Contagium , w r hich show the destruction of tissue 
induced by vaccinia. It is to be regretted that Dr. Martin 
has not thought fit to give some account of the causes which, 
according to Dr. D. Decanteleu, produced such very different 
forms of cicatrices. 
Statistical evidence in favour of animal vaccination is next 
given by Dr. Martin. During less than seven years he had 
vaccinated and superintended the vaccination of over 600 
animals, and from these over 800,000 charged points and 
many thousands of crusts and tubes of fiuid lymph w r ere 
issued. Moreover, during the epidemic of 1872-73 he vac- 
