ial evidence of the presence of
erysipelas micrococcus or other germ which kills the local tissues. Again,
in tuberculosis affecting the bag (a not uncommon condition), the active
local cause is without doubt the tubercle bacillus.

It has been found that false membranes have formed in certain cases of
mammitis in the cow, and Klein, after inoculating the diphtheria of man on
the cow, found an ulcerous sore in the seat of inoculation and blisters on
the teats and udder, in which he found what he believed to be the bacillus
of diphtheria. The results are doubtful, even in the absence of false
membranes. Loeffler, too, in the diphtheria of calves, found that the germ
was longer and more delicate than that of man, and that its pathogenesis
for rodents was less, guinea pigs having only a nonfatal abscess. The
presence of false membranes in one form of mammitis in cows does not
necessarily imply its communicability to man.

It has been asserted that scarlet fever has been transmitted from the cow
to man, and it can not be denied that in many cases the infection has been
spread by means of the milk. The facts, however, when brought out fully
have shown that in almost every case the milk had first come into contact
with a person suffering or recovering from scarlet fever, so that the milk
was infected after it left the cow. The alleged exceptional cases at Hendon
and Dover, England, are not conclusive. In the Hendon outbreak inoculations
were made on calves from the slight eruption on the cow's teats, and they
had a slight eruption on the lips and a form of inflammation of the
kidneys, which Dr. Klein thought resembled that of scarlatina. The cows
that had brought the disease to the Hendon dairies were traced back to
Wiltshire, where cows were found suffering from a similar malady, but no
sign of scarlet fever resulted. In the Dover outbreak the dairyman first
denied any disease in his cows, and brought a certificate of a veterinarian
to prove that they were sound at the time of the investigation; then later
he confessed that the cows had had foot-and-mouth disease some time
before, and consequent eruption on the teats. So the question remains
whether the man who denied sickness in the cows to begin with, and adduced
professional evidence of it, did not later acknowledge the foot-and-mouth
disease as a blind to hide the real source of the trouble in scarlatina in
his own family or in the family of an employee.

In America Dr.