Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T06:23:07.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of the Bacilli of the Capsulatus-mucosus Group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. Bamforth
J. Bamforth
Affiliation:
Assistant Director of Pathology, St Thomas's Hospital, S.E. 1.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Bacillus capsulatus-mucosus group may be said to have originated with the discovery of the pneumobacillus by Friedländer in 1883. This organism was isloated from the lung in a case of croupous pneumonia, and it is interesting to note, as can be ascertained from a study of the literature, that the discovery appears to have been of an accidental nature, and, as was pointed out by Weicheselbaum, that Friedläder had really confused it with the pneumococcus. Subsequently, numerous other bacilli, which showed such marked similarity to the pneumobacillus in morphological, cultural and biological characteristics as to render differentiation among them a matter of extreme difficulty, were isolated by various workers from widely different sources. In a paper published in 1896 Fricke furnishes a list of the representatives of this group of organisms which had up to that time been found. Many of these were subsequently used as type strains by later workers and some are still available and frequently employed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , June 1928 , pp. 343 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

References

REFERENCES

Aber, R. (1893). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 13, 161 (1896); Centralbl. f. Bakt. 21, 89.Google Scholar
Amos, H. L. (1925). J. Exp. Med. 41, 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkwright, J. A. (1921). J. Path. and Bact. 24, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, O. T. and Morgan, H. J. (1925). J. Exp. Med. 42, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, O. T. and Neill, J. M. (1925). J. Exp. Med. 42, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertarelli, E. (1906). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 1, Abt. Ref. 37, 343.Google Scholar
Besson, A. (1924). Technique microbiologique et sérothérapique, p. 784.Google Scholar
Bluemer, G. and Laird, A. T. (1901). Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 12, 45.Google Scholar
Bordoni-Uffreduzzi, G. (1888). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 3, 333.Google Scholar
Chiari, H. (1895). Prager med. Wochenschr. 251.Google Scholar
Clairmont, P. (1902). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 39, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, T. (1893). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 19, 804.Google Scholar
Denys, J. and Martin, J. (1893). La Cellule, 9, 261.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, L. S. (1926). J. Hygiene, 25, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, L. S., Wordley, E. and Bawtree, F. (1921). J. Hygiene, 20, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
v. Dungern, E. (1893). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 14, 541.Google Scholar
Edwards, [quoted from Besson, v. supra, p. 793].Google Scholar
v. Eisler, M. and Porges, O. (1906). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 1 Abt. Orig. 42, 660.Google Scholar
Escherich, T. (1886). Die Darmbakterien des Säuglings. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fasching, M. (1892). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 12, 304.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. G. (1912–13). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med. 10, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricke, C. (1896). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 23, 380.Google Scholar
Friedlander, C. (1883). Fortschr. d. Med. 1, 715.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B. (1910). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 1 Abt. Orig. 53, 477.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B. (1911). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 57, 481.Google Scholar
Grimbert, L. and Legros, G. (1900). Compt. rent. Soc. de Biol. 52, 491.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, M. and Avery, O. T. (1923). J. Exp. Med. 38, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, M. and Avery, O. T. (1924). J. Exp. Med. 40, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, M., Goebel, W. F. and Avery, O. T. (1925). J. Exp. Med. 40, 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, W. T. (1899). J. Exp. Med. 4, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julianelle, L. A. (1926). J. Exp. Med. 44, 113, 683 and 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, F. and Scheier, M. (1902). Zeitschr. klin. Med. 14, 133.Google Scholar
Kockel, (1891). Fortschr. d. Med. 9, 331.Google Scholar
Kreibohm, R. (1889). Ueber das Vorkommen pathogener Mikroorganismen im Mundsecret. Dissert. Gottingen.Google Scholar
Kruse, (1899). Review in Centralbl. f. Bakt. 25, 49.Google Scholar
Loeb, (1891). Review in Centralbl. f. Bakt. 10, 369.Google Scholar
Mandry, (1890). Fortschr. d. Med. 8, 205.Google Scholar
Marchand, (1894). Review in Centralbl. f. Bakt. 15, 428.Google Scholar
Miller, W. D. (1892). Die Mikroorganismen der Mundhöhle, 320–322.Google Scholar
Mori, R. (1888). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 4, 47.Google Scholar
Nicolaier, A. (1894). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 16, 601.Google Scholar
Passet, J. (1885). Untersuchungen über die Aetiologie der eitrigen Phlegmone des Menschem. Berlin.Google Scholar
Paulsen, (1890). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 8, 344.Google Scholar
Perkins, R. G. (1900–01). J. Exp. Med. 5, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1899). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 6, 145.Google Scholar
Porges, O. (1905). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 18, 691.Google Scholar
Reimann, H. A. (1925). J. Exp. Med. 41, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicard, A. (1899). Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. 51, 813.Google Scholar
Small, C. and Julianelle, L. A. (1922). J. Infect. Dis. 32, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, L. W. (1899). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 25, 49.Google Scholar
Stryker, L. M. (1916). J. Exp. Med. 24, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weichselbaum, A. (1886). Wien. med. Jahrb. p. 483.Google Scholar
Wicklein, E. (1895). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 18, 425.Google Scholar
Wilde, M. (1896). Ueber den Bacillus pneumoniae Friendlander's und verwandte Bakterien. Bann.Google Scholar
Wordley, E. (1921). J. Hygiene, 20, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. H. and Mallory, F. B. (1895). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. 20, 220.Google Scholar