Fowl Typhoid and Fowl Cholera 
11 
Typhoid in canaries had not, however, previously been reported. He finally 
concludes that his organism is a type sui generis, morphologically like fowl 
typhoid but biologically different. 
Lucet, in 1891, described under the title of “epizootic dysentery of fowls,” a 
malady which seems to differ in no essential manner from the so-called fowl 
typhoid, and from the disease reported by Klein and earlier writers. The 
disease was reported to attack birds of all ages, but chiefly fowls one year old. 
Among the prominent symptoms, Lucet reported pale comb, yellowish or red¬ 
dish diarrheal droppings, exudation from mouth, and a rise in temperature of 
one to two degrees. Death usually came nine to thirteen hours after the 
appearance of the symptoms, though some cases endured for twenty days and 
some birds recovered—then manifesting a temperature two to three degrees 
subnormal. The pathological anatomy was characterized by fatty drops in the 
blood, lungs hyperemic, serous pericardial exudate, liver enlarged and friable 
with hemorrhagic extravasations, gall bladder distended, and kidneys con¬ 
gested. The organism isolated quickly lost its virulence, although it in¬ 
creased by passages through hens. Rabbits were susceptible only through 
intravenous injection; pigeons could be infected, at least by a subcutaneous 
inoculation, but guinea pigs were refractory. The organisms were present in 
the blood only in small numbers. 
Lucet makes a comparison between his bacterium and the B. gallinarum of 
Klein, and concludes that they are different species. 
Foth, in 1892, reported an epidemic among fowls from which he isolated a 
bacillus which in its motility, staining and cultural features resembled B. ty¬ 
phosus. It differed in this respect that it formed gas. The blood and organ 
tissues swarmed with the organisms. Inoculation into rabbits subcutaneously 
resulted in local reaction only. Young rabbits, however, were killed by intra¬ 
venous inoculation. Pigeons and hens inoculated subcutaneously were re¬ 
fractory, but gave intense local reaction. No other details of the biochemical 
features of the culture are presented. 
In 1894 Perroncito studied an infection in Piemonte from which he isolated 
an organism about twice the size of the fowl cholera bacterium. Aside from 
the fact that it did not liquefy gelatin and produced only a tumefaction at the 
site of the injection in fowls, no other data was presented. Perroncito be¬ 
lieved that this disease, as well as the epidemic which he reported in 1878, 
was distinguishable from the true fowl cholera. It is important to observe, 
however, that by the year 1899, Perroncito’s view of this matter was changed. 
In sittings of the Academy of Medicine of Turin, held on May 19 and 26, 1899, 
he opposes the views of Mazza, Abba, and Foa, that the then present epidemics 
among fowls in northern Italy were not fowl cholera. At this time he states 
his belief that the epidemics previously studied by him in 1878 and 1894 were 
really examples of fowl cholera, although he did not previously accept this 
view. This conclusion is opposed by Mazza, Abba and Foa, who adhere to the 
view that the then prevailing epizootic, as well as maladies studied earlier, 
differ from the actual fowl cholera in many respects, relating to the causative 
agent, and the pathological conditions revealed at autopsy, as well as in the 
pathogenicity for hens, pigeons, and laboratory animals. 
In 1894 Loir Duclaux studied in Tunis an epidemic among fowls from which 
they isolated a bacillus which they termed B. avium. The organism was a 
short gram-negative bacillus with rounded ends, which grew well on ordinary 
culture media. Only a meagre presentation of the cultural features occurs. 
In 1894 Lignieres examined a number of hens which died showing diarrhea 
but no other symptoms. At autopsy he observed generalized inflammation of 
the intestinal tract, and a quantity of serous fluid in the body cavity, together 
with enlargement of the spleen and liver. From the spleen he isolated a cul¬ 
ture which appeared to be of the B. coli type. Hens resisted intravenous. 
