1 Dec., 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 447 
one and the same thing. The disease weare considering has, in fact, aboutas many 
names as the chameleon has colours, and, like the chromatic vagaries of that 
reptile, they lead to endless confusion. But just as the chameleon remains the 
the same chamelon whatever tint it may assume, the disease we are considering 
remains always the same disease, by whatever name we may choose to call it. 
Whether we call it “redwater,” “tick fever,” ‘Texas fever,’ or any other 
name, matters little, so long as we bear always in mind that these mean essen- 
tially one and the same thing—viz., infection of the blood by the same peculiar 
micro-organism. \ 
I have, however, good reason to know that this has not always been recog- 
nised, and that the names mentioned have been supposed to represent so many 
different diseases. 
A rather amusing illustration of this occurred a little while ago when a 
friend of mine, being delayed at a wayside station on the Northern Railway, 
endeavoured, as is his wont, to improve the occasion by seeking all available 
information. Seeing two likely-looking youths who he thought might know 
something about cattle, ticks, and tick fever, he asked them if there were any 
ticks thereabouts, to which they replied, “Any amount.’ The next question 
was—‘ Are they doing any harm, or killing any cattle?” And the reply was 
quite definitely, “‘No.” He then asked if any cattle were dying; and the 
answer came promptly, “ Any amount—from redwater—and if they continue 
dying at same rate there will soon be none left.” My friend made some 
reference to inoculation, but they seemed ‘to know very little about it, and 
someone joined in that your present lecturer was a fraud, and knew nothing 
about the disease: he had a trip to America for nothing. Leaving out the 
charming candour and directness of the latter opinion, the little incident was, L 
think, instructive, because it showed clearly the confusion still actually existing 
as to the nature of ‘redwater” and its relation to the ticks. — ale ER 
And if this has been the result of calling one disease by two or three 
different names, it would be curious to know what would happen if the 
hundred-and-one other names by which this same bovine infection is, and has 
been, known in various parts of the world were to become popularised amongst 
us. But I imagine still greater confusion would ensue, and there would 
appear to be such a pandemonium of jaw-breaking diseases abroad as would 
drive every cattle man distracted from the country. ~ 
When one thing is called by many names it is generally, I think, because 
none of them are perfectly appropriate. Far be it from me, however, to intro- 
duce a fresh one for this disease. It would, I should say, probably be better 
to do away with the words “redwater” and “tick fever’ altogether, and stick 
to the older and more widely known designation of “Texas fever.’ _ 
“ Redwater” is a most peculiarly unfortunate name, because it has already 
been applied to quite other diseases in cattle in which discoloration of the 
urine also happens to be present, and, further, because such a condition of the 
urine is at best only a symptom—and a by no means necessary or invariable 
one at that. In many cases of Texas fever it is altogether absent. Just as 
well might we call malarial infection the “shivering disease,’’ forgetting that 
shivering is a symptom common to many other conditions, and that malarial” 
infection may be present without any of the shivering fits so common in typical 
ague. ‘ Redwater” is just about as characteristic of Texas fever—or as 
necessary to it—as shivering is to malarial infection. ; 
“'Tiek fever” also seems to me open to objection, because it implies that 
the tick causes the disease ; whereas, as I shall presently have occasion to 
point out, it does not necessarily do anything of the kind; and when it does 
take « hand in the production of the disease, it does so only in an indirect way, 
in the same way as an inoculating syringe might do. Hence, the term “ tick 
fever” appears only perfectly appropriate when used in a sense antithetical to 
“ inoculation feyer”—the one meaning the fever produced through the agency 
of the tick, the other the fever produced through the agency of the syringe. 
