142 
F. S. BILLINGS 
histologically identical. We are also aware that equally competent 
authorities see sufficient histological variations in their structures 
to pronounce them different—Virchow, Schultz, and others. We 
are also aware that some authors have considered the so-called 
giant cells to be the diagnostic sign of tuberculosis, while at the 
present day very many trustworthy authorities decide the same 
not to he necessary. We can ourselves but express our surprise 
at the mistaken path men of such discernment as some of the 
auihors upon this question, have taken in looking for the identity 
in the product alone. The identity must be sought in the cause, 
whether the product be tubercle, cheesy, metamorphosis, or what 
not; the individuality will frequently influence the product. In 
this very'case, we find by cattle the product varying. At one time 
we have the tubercles in the lungs, at another the “ perlsucht,” 
“ grapes ” on the serosse. 
Again we have “ tuberculosis pulmonum ” by the horse as 
an accompaniment of glanders, and again it fails; yet no one 
would think of assuming that a tuberculotic cow had glanders, 
even if confined in the same stable for a long time with a glan- 
dered horse, yet the identity in the product is very evident; it 
may be said by some, “ the nasal mucosse are also affected by the 
horse,” to which may be answered, innumerable—in fact the 
most dangerous cases of glanders for the community—are the 
pulmonary varieties where the nasal mucosse are often entirely 
intact. Again the presence of tubercles in the lungs of the 
horse is not of itself in all cases pathognomonic of glanders, as 
was very clearly demonstrated lately by M. Trasbot, at Alfort, 
(see Receuil de Med. Yet., vi. Series, Tome v., ISTo. 9, p. 491, ar¬ 
ticle entitled “Tuberculization miliaire non morveuse cliez nn 
chevah”) Notwithstanding the worthy editor of the Veterinary 
Journal considers the question as “fully discussed,” we must 
ourselves most emphatically assert the contrary. Although we 
know that the elements of the lungs of cattle diseased with tuber¬ 
culosis, and perhaps the milk, (?) are capable of producing tuber¬ 
culosis in young animals per the digestive tract, but in the face 
of this evidence we must most obstinately assert that the identity 
between tuberculosis of man and cattle is still a hypothesis, and 
