Practitioner - 1902 Author:Unknown Author Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Felice had at that time examined, Plimmer was able to " isolate " a yeast in only one. One assumes that the organism which Plimmer isolated from one of the two r... more »emarkable cases was a yeast, although he himself does not seem to be quite clear on this point: — The organism is apparently a saccharomyces, but I am informed that . . . the saccharomycetes are nothing but the development stages of fungi which really belong to the phycomycetes, the ascomycetes. ... so I will not attempt to locate the organism at present. San Felice and Roncali, however, definitely state that the organisms which they have isolated are blastomycetes. Gaylord 1S and Weiss37 have, however, given fairly full descriptions of this organism which they obtained from Plimmer, and there is no difficulty in deciding that the organism described was in fact what is known at present as a blastomyces. Plimmer's diffidence in this matter of giving a definite name to the alleged parasite is perhaps explained by a paper by Ruffer and Plimmer, " Sur le mode du reproduction des parasites du cancer" (" Comptcs Rendus de la Socicte dc Biologic," Serie 9, tome 5, p. 836, 1893), in which the writers describe in some detail, just six years before the appearance of Plimmer's Royal Society paper, the method of reproduction of a specific protozoal cancer parasite which was certainly not a blastomyces, but which Ruffer and Plimmer then regarded as standing in causal relationship to the disease. Plimmer then proceeds to give the results of certain animal experiments. With six rabbits the following results were obtained: three animals received respectively intra-venous, intra-peritoneal, and subcutaneous injection, without suffering any obvious ill effects; two animals received sub-dural inoculations, and after their death y...« less