68 RErorT OF THE BACTERIOLOGIST OF THE 
givings on my part, for it was desirable to follow your directions 
closely that comparable results might be secured. 
“ Meanwhile it was decided as a check on the above experi- 
mental work, to secure other cultures in the open market, and to 
inoculate these into parallel tapwater and distilled water solu- 
tions, otherwise following the printed directions as furnished by 
the Nitro-Culture Company. Accordingly on. July 18 two pack- 
ages of nitro-culture were purchased at the Henderson store on 
Cortlandt street, New York city. One of these was for crim- 
son clover and was dated May 1, 1905, the other was for soy 
beans, and was also dated May 1, 1905. The salts found in this 
package were used to make up two solutions, one in distilled 
water, the other in tapwater. The ammonium phosphate (pack- 
age marked ©) was dissolved separately. The solutions were 
sterilized in the autoclave, cooled and! inoculated, the ammonium 
phosphate being added with a sterile pipette at the end of twenty- 
four hours. 
“Without going into detail, it is sufficient to state here that 
the tapwater cultures made rapid growth, and were turbid at 
the end of twenty-four hours after the addition of the ammo- 
nium phosphate. The distilled water cultures made very slow 
growth, but finally became cloudy at the end of four or five 
days. Hanging drop preparations, as well as the agar plates 
prepared from these cultures, failed to show the presence of P. 
radicicola at any time. | 
“Taking the two experiments together, it would seem that 
while the results with nitro-cultures 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, 
were inconclusive, those secured with the crimson clover and the 
soy bean cultures would indicate that P. radicicola was either 
absent in the cotton supplied by the company or would not 
develop (when present) even under the conditions called for by 
the printed directions accompanying each package. Further 
comments are unnecessary, although in justice to all concerned, 
it would be no more than proper to check the work once more.” 
(Sée page 81.) eo: 
PHTROIT REPORT, . ate 
Dr. Houghton sent his report September 4, 1905. In this case 
the laboratory work was done by Mr. L. T. Clark. 
