the recommendations of the British Committee supported as they seem to be by our local experience, certainly warrant the recommendation of these measures for use in combating contagious abortion. In any event good results cannot be expected without intelligent, careful, and painstaking work, and it may be that some of the failures in applying these measures have resulted from lack of efficiency in applying them rather than from insufficiency of the measures themselves.

References

1. Bang. Die Aetiologie des seuchenhaften ("infectiösen") Verwertens. Ztschr. f. Thiermed. 1: 241-278. 1897.

2. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Great Britain). Report of the Departmental Committee to inquire into Epizoötic Abortion. Part 1. Epizoötic Abortion in Cattle. London, 1909.

3. Chester. A Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. 1901.

4. McFadyean and Stockman. Epizoötic Abortion. Report. Dept. Com. Bd. Agr. and Fisheries. (Gt. Brit.), Appendix to Part I, 1909. Review in Expt. Sta. Record 22: 584-586. 1910.

5. MacNeal and Kerr. Bacillus abortus of Bang, the cause of contagious abortion in cattle. Jour. Infect. Diseases 7: 469-475 (1910).

6. Nocard, Review by Bang. Ztschr. f. Thiermed, 1: 243-246. 1897.

7. Nowak. Le bacille de Bang et sa biologie. Annales de l'Institut Pasteur 22: 541-546. 1908.

8. Preisz. Der Bacillus des seuchenhaften Verwerfens. Centralbl. f. Bakt. etc., I Abt. Orig. 33: 190-196 (1903).

9. Zwick. Ueber den Erreger des infectiösen Abortus des Rindes. Centralbl. f. Bakt. etc., Beilage zu I Abt. Ref. 47: 219-220. 1910.