Com._, London, 1876. =Köbner, Heinrich.= Prof. in Berlin. Author of “Uebertragungsversuche von Lepra auf Thiere.” Experiments to give leprosy to animals.--Virchow’s _Archiv._, 88 vol., p. 282. “One monkey, two guinea-pigs, two young white rats, one white mouse, two rabbits, one pigeon, three eels, one mud-fish, and one frog were inoculated in several parts of the body with leprous matter, and also small portions of tissue impregnated with bacilli were engrafted. Leprosy did not break out in any of the animals.”--_Note by O. Israel_, _Centralbl. f. Wiss. Med. No. 5_, 1883, p. 79. =Koch, Heinrich Hermann Robert.= M.D. Geheimrath. Direct. of the Pathol. Instit. of Sanit. Med. Berlin. “You saw the dog which was injected with a minimum quantity of tubercle bacilli. The injection was made in the abdominal cavity, and produced an exquisite tubercular peritonitis. Nevertheless, the dog finally recovered entirely, and seemed perfectly well. Then the same dog was used again, and a large number of bacilli were introduced into the abdominal cavity. You will see that the dog is fatally ill. Now, if one attack conferred immunity, it ought to have been impossible to produce this second attack. Hence I do not think it possible to prevent the disease in that way, nor do I think it necessary to try it.”--“_Dr. Robert Koch interviewed_,” _Med. Times_, Aug. 26th, 1882, p. 255. “The result of Koch’s inoculation experiments he (Dr. Formad) discredited, because the successful ones had been made only on animals that have a very strong predisposition to tuberculosis, and contract it from inoculation of non-specific substances, while others, which were claimed to be successful, he regarded as cases of pseudotuberculosis. The view in regard to the bacilli tuberculosis to which Dr. Formad inclined, was that they do not cause the disease, while it is likely that they do ‘condition the fatal disease.’ The remarks were received with marked interest, and were followed by a brief discussion, participated in by Drs. Wood, Gross, Tyson, Bartholow, Cohen, and others. Some of the speakers seem to have adopted Koch’s views, and it was spoken of as a matter of congratulation that one so well fitted as Dr. Formad should have presented the arguments against them, since the truth would be arrived at all the more surely if the new doctrine were put upon its defence, and not allowed to establish itself without due scrutiny.”--_Philadelphia Med. News_, Oct. 28, 1882. (Reprinted in _Med. Times_, Dec. 2, 1882.) “Dr. Koch’s conclusions enjoy a very considerable _succès d’estime_, but that esteem would perhaps be less were it clearly understood that the original intention, and indeed the justification, of the method of dry cultivation has been quietly dropped, while the method itself has been put to a use for which it is not at all suited.”--_Med. Times_, July 15, 1882, p. 78.