347

VACCINIA AND VARIOLA.l’o the -Editors of THE LANCET.

SIRS,—Dr. Crookshank is no doubt right in stating thatthe intimate nature of the virus in vaccinia, as in some otherinfective diseases, has not yet been conclusively demon-strated, but the fact that it has long ago been shown to beparticulate, both by Chauveau and Burdon Sanderson, placesit in a different position, in respect to this question, to thoseother diseases where the evidence adduced in support of theview of their micro-parasitical origin rests upon morpho-logical observations and inconclusive inoculation experiments.With respect to the prevalence of vaccinia amongst cows,

those who can speak from the observations of thirty and fortyyears ago will testify that it was then very frequent indifferent parts of the country, and it appears to be the factthat it is now rare ; this, I think, arises from the circumstancethat young calves are now treated differently from what theywere formerly, and are generally, I believe, removed fromtheir mothers when a few days old and brought up by hand ;this isolation would thus tend to limit the occurrence ofthe affection, and may serve to account for the conflictingstatements as to its prevalence.In regard to the identity of vaccinia and variola, the

results of different experiments being conflicting and incon-clusive, it must be borne in mind that in other infectivediseases, where it has been demonstrated that by passing thevirus through an animal or series of animals of a differentspecies its activity is modified, when it is retransmittedthrough animals of the species primarily affected it shortlyregains its original virulence. This is equally the case insuch diseases as anthrax, which is truly micro-parasitical ;and also, as shown by M. Pasteur, in rabies and others,where the nature of the contagium is doubtful. We may,therefore, reasonably consider this a law of general applica-tion, and should expect that if vaccinia were merely variolamodified or attenuated in virulence by passage through thecow, it would on reinoculation in the human subject, in thecourse of many generations, regain its pristine virulence;but long experience shows that this is by no means the case,and in the absence of experimental evidence to the contrary,we are entitled to regard the two diseases as distinct.From a bacteriological point of view, Dr. Klein’s con-

clusions that the micrococcus of scarlatina is a specifi-cally distinct organism have been strongly opposed on thegrounds that its points of difference from others are slightand with difficulty distinguishable. It is reported to havebeen said that " some minor differences ...... could not beaccepted as a satisfactory method of distinction." Thisinvolves the difficult question of what constitutes a distinctpathogenic species. When, however, Drs. Lewis, Klein, andothers lately maintained that the so-termed " cholera" "

comma bacillus was not a specific pathogenic microbe, buta common saprophyte widely distributed, it was persistentlymaintained by the followers of Dr. Koch that any difference,however slight, of form or habit among microbes constitutesa specific distinction; and now Dr. Klein is met by theopposite contention.

Fair criticism and discussion will tend to elucidate thfvery important issues raised by these investigations; bulDr. Klein’s statement as to the specificity of the microbe b(has described is not invalidated. Nor is it correct to saythat his etiological investigation is deficient in any requisitestep; it is as complete as the nature of the case and the different symptoms ot the disease in man and the lower animalpermit. He has complied with the postulates laid domby Koch for these cases, and which are universally acceptedin bacterial pathology. The final confirmation alone i

wanting-viz,, that his experiments and observations shoulbe repeated by an independent investigator. The full detailed report of the work is published, and anyone mareadily judge for himself whether this is so or not.

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,Feb. 6th, 1888. G. F. DOWDESWELL, M.A.G. F. DOWDESWELL, M.A.

THE LIST OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OFPHYSICIANS ; A CORRECTION.

To the Editors of THE LANCET.SIRS,—At the suggestion of the Registrar of the College

of Physicians, I ask you kindly to publish this letter incorrection of an error which has slipped, strangely enough,into the last published list of the Fellows of the College, and

which there appears to be no official mode of correctinguntil next year.

I went to Rome in November to escape the London fogs,and, having occasion while there to write to Sir H. Pitman,directed my letter from a hotel in that city. The Bedell to.whom the drawing up the list is entrusted, seeing this letter,jumped to the conclusion that I had left London, and, to SirH. Pitman’s surprise, as well as my own, put my name downas living in a hotel in Rome. I am now in Genoa, on myway home, where I hope to arrive in a week or two, andmust trespass on your goodness to allow me thus to rectifyan error which may otherwise prove most injurious to me.

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,Harley-street, W., Feb. 11th, 1888. CHARLES WEST.CHARLES WEST.

EFFECTS FOLLOWING THE RAPID EMPTYING OFA DISTENDED BLADDER.

To the Editors of THE LANCET.SIRS,—The following may be of interest to some of your

readers :-F. H—— (an intimate friend of mine), aged twenty-

three years, well built, perfectly healthy, Ifft Lime-street, Liverpool, by the 12.45 night train for Edinburgh.An hour before starting he had eaten a hearty supper, withwhich he drank a pint of beer. During the journey helay down reading and smoking, and fell fast asleep half anhour before reaching Carlisle. When the train stopped atCarlisle (at 4.15 A.M.), he awoke suddenly and hurried to theurinal, which happened to be exactly opposite the compart-ment in which he was travelling. After micturating freelyhe in a few seconds felt slightly sick, and then, becoming"quite blind" and insensible, fell backwards full length. Hewas set on his feet by his fellow-passengers, and, thoughslightly dazed, feeling as if his head were " ice cold," and

, staggering, he walked back to the train. Ten minutes laterhe could scarcely realise that anything extraordinary hadhappened. With the exception of soreness about his elbows,

; head, and buttocks, which (owing to the heaviness of his, fall) lasted two or three days, he experienced no further in-, convenience. As be had never fainted or had a fit of any

kind in his life before, my friend was naturally somewhat- puzzled, if not alarmed. There can be no doubt that this was- a case of fainting due to rapid emptying of a somewhate distended bladder. (I omitted to mention that he had nott passed urine for four hours.)e Dr. Lauder Brunton gives a very lucid explanation of thise accident (if it may be so called) in his work on Therapeutics.s Thecaseverywell illustrates the points on which Dr. Brunton,t lays stress-viz., sudden awaking and rapid emptying of theydistended bladder; and would form an excellent text for a"

sermon on the want of regard for the convenience of theirpassengers shown by the English railway companies.

y I am, Sirs, yours truly,3, Liverpool, Jan. 22nd, 1888. H. E. J.

ON THE TREATMENT OF CYSTIC GOITRES.To the Editors of THE LANCET.

SIRS,—Mr. Mark Hovell, writing last week in THE LANCETon the excellence of treating cystic goitres by changing the.cysts into abscesses, makes no mention of rubber cannulæ-In the article on " Goitre" in Quain’s " Dictionary of Medi-cine," I have written, "The metal cannula should then bereplaced"-the third or fourth day-" by an indiarubberone (made with a middle layer of webbing), the cannula)being cut short as the cyst becomes smaller." I stronglyrecommend this plan, as doing away with the risk of

irritating the walls of the goitre by the metal tube. Th&

expense of a rubber cannula is only three or four shillings.Made with webbing it is very strong.

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,Canterbury, Feb. llth, 1888. PUGIN THORNTON.PUGIN THORNTON.

THE RIVER A IRE, LEEDS.—The pollution of thisriver was the subject of considprable discussion at a meetingof the Town Council held on the 8th inst. Ultimately thefollowing resolution was adopted: " That the mayor hedesired to bring about at an early date a conference of thecorporations and sanitary authorities connected with thewatershed of the Aire, for the purpose of discussing themeans of reducing the lamentable pollution of the river."