The Story of Germ Life

During the last fifteen years the subject of bacteriology [Footnote: The term microbe is simply a word which has been coined to include all of the microscopic plants commonly included under the terms bacteria and yeasts.] has developed with a marvellous rapidity. At the beginning of the ninth decade of the century bacteria were scarcely heard of outside of scientific circles, and very little was known about them even among scientists. Today they are almost household words, and everyone who reads is beginning to recognise that they have important relations to his everyday life.

The organisms called bacteria comprise simply a small class of low plants, but this small group has proved to be of such vast importance in its relation to the world in general that its study has little by little crystallized into a science by itself. It is a somewhat anomalous fact that a special branch of science, interesting such a large number of people, should be developed around a small group of low plants. The importance of bacteriology is not due to any importance bacteria have as plants or as members of the vegetable kingdom, but solely to their powers of producing profound changes in Nature. There is no one family of plants that begins to compare with them in importance. It is the object of this work to point out briefly how much both of good and ill we owe to the life and growth of these microscopic organisms. As we have learned more and more of them during the last fifty years, it has become more and more evident that this one little class of microscopic plants fills a place in Nature's processes which in some respects balances that filled by the whole of the green plants. Minute as they are, their importance can hardly be overrated, for upon their activities is founded the continued life of the animal and vegetable kingdom. For good and for ill they are agents of neverceasing and almost unlimited powers.

HISTORICAL.

The study of bacteria practically began with the use of the microscope. It was toward the close of the seventeenth century that the Dutch microscopist, Leeuwenhoek, working with his simple lenses, first saw the organisms which we now know under this name, with sufficient clearness to describe them. Beyond mentioning their existence, however, his observations told little or nothing. Nor can much more be said of the studies which followed during the next one hundred and fifty years. During this long period many a microscope was turned to the observation of these minute organisms, but the majority of observers were contented with simply seeing them, marvelling at their minuteness, and uttering many exclamations of astonishment at the wonders of Nature. A few men of more strictly scientific natures paid some attention to these little organisms. Among them we should perhaps mention Von Gleichen, Muller, Spallanzani, and Needham. Each of these, as well as others, made some contributions to our knowledge of microscopical life, and among other organisms studied those which we now call bacteria. Speculations were even made at these early dates of the possible causal connection of these organisms with diseases, and for a little the medical profession was interested in the suggestion. It was impossible then, however, to obtain any evidence for the truth of this speculation, and it was abandoned as unfounded, and even forgotten completely, until revived again about the middle of the 19th century. During this century of wonder a sufficiency of exactness was, however, introduced into the study of microscopic organisms to call for the use of names, and we find Muller using the names of Monas, Proteus, Vibrio, Bacillus, and Spirillum, names which still continue in use, although commonly with a different significance from that given them by Muller. Muller did indeed make a study sufficient to recognise the several distinct types, and attempted to classsify these bodies. They were not regarded as of much importance, but simply as the most minute organisms known.

Nothing of importance came from this work, however, partly because of the inadequacy of the microscopes of the day, and partly because of a failure to understand the real problems at issue. When we remember the minuteness of the bacteria, the impossibility of studying any one of them for more than a few moments at a time -only so long, in fact, as it can be followed under a microscope; when we remember, too, the imperfection of the compound microscopes which made high powers practical impossibilities; and, above all, when we appreciate the looseness of the ideas which pervaded all scientists as to the necessity of accurate observation in distinction from inference, it is not strange that the last century gave us no knowledge of bacteria beyond the mere fact of the existence of some extremely minute organisms in different decaying materials. Nor did the 19th century add much to this until toward its middle. It is true that the microscope was vastly improved early in the century, and since this improvement served as a decided stimulus to the study of microscopic life, among other organisms studied, bacteria received some attention. Ehrenberg, Dujardin, Fuchs, Perty, and others left the impress of their work upon bacteriology even before the middle of the century. It is true that Schwann shrewdly drew conclusions as to the relation of microscopic organisms to various processes of fermentation and decay-conclusions which, although not accepted at the time, have subsequently proved to be correct. It is true that Fuchs made a careful study of the infection of "blue milk," reaching the correct conclusion that the infection was caused by a microscopic organism which he discovered and carefully studied. It is true that Henle made a general theory as to the relation of such organisms to diseases, and pointed out the logically necessary steps in a demonstration of the causal connection between any organism and a disease. It is true also that a general theory of the production of ail kinds of fermentation by living organisms had been advanced. But all these suggestions made little impression. On the one hand, bacteria were not recognised as a class of organisms by themselves-were not, indeed, distinguished from yeasts or other minute animalcuise. Their variety was not mistrusted and their significance not conceived. As microscopic organisms, there were no reasons for considering them of any more importance than any other small animals or plants, and their extreme minuteness and simplicity made them of little interest to the microscopist. On the other hand, their causal connection with fermentative and putrefactive processes was entirely obscured by the overshadowing weight of the chemist Liebig, who believed that fermentations and putrefactions were simply chemical processes. Liebig insisted that all albuminoid bodies were in a state of chemically unstable equilibrium, and if left to themselves would fall to pieces without any need of the action of microscopic organisms. The force of Liebig's authority and the brilliancy of his expositions led to the wide acceptance of his views and the temporary obscurity of the relation of microscopic organisms to fermentative and putrefactive processes. The objections to Liebig's views were hardly noticed, and the force of the experiments of Schwann was silently ignored. Until the sixth decade of the century, therefore, these organisms, which have since become the basis of a new branch of science, had hardly emerged from obscurity. A few microscopists recognised their existence, just as they did any other group of small animals or plants, but even yet they failed to look upon them as forming a distinct group. A growing number of observations was accumulating, pointing toward a probable causal connection between fermentative and putrefactive processes and the growth of microscopic organisms; but these observations were known only to a few, and were ignored by the majority of scientists.

It was Louis Pasteur who brought bacteria to the front, and it was by his labours that these organisms were rescued from the obscurity of scientific publications and made objects of general and crowning interest. It was Pasteur who first successfully combated the chemical theory of fermentation by showing that albuminous matter had no inherent tendency to decomposition. It was Pasteur who first clearly demonstrated that these little bodies, like all larger animals and plants, come into existence only by ordinary methods of reproduction, and not by any spontaneous generation, as had been earlier claimed. It was Pasteur who first proved that such a common phenomenon as. the souring of milk was produced by microscopic organisms growing in the milk. It was Pasteur who first succeeded in demonstrating that certain species of microscopic organisms are the cause of certain diseases, and in suggesting successful methods of avoiding them. All these discoveries were made in rapid succession. Within ten years of the time that his name began to be heard in this connection by scientists, the subject had advanced so rapidly that it had become evident that here was a new subject of importance to the scientific world, if not to the public at large. The other important discoveries which Pasteur made it is not our purpose to mention here. His claim to be considered the founder of bacteriology will be recognised from what has already been mentioned. It was not that he first discovered the organisms, or first studied them; it was not that he first suggested their causal connection with fermentation and disease, but it was because he for the first time placed the subject upon a firm foundation by proving with rigid experiment some of the suggestions made by others, and in this way turned the attention of science to the study of micro-organisms.

After the importance of the subject had been demonstrated by Pasteur, others turned their attention in the same direction, either for the purpose of verification or refutation of Pasteur's views. The advance was not very rapid, however, since bacteriological experimentation proved to be a subject of extraordinary difficulty. Bacteria were not even yet recognised as a group of organisms distinct enough to be grouped by themselves, but were even by Pasteur at first confounded with yeasts. As a distinct group of organisms they were first distinguished by Hoffman in 1869, since which date the term bacteria, as applying to this special group of organisms, has been coming more and more into use. So difficult were the investigations, that for years there were hardly any investigators besides Pasteur who could successfully handle the subject and reach conclusions which could stand the test of time. For the next thirty years, although investigators and investigations continued to increase, we can find little besides dispute and confusion along this line. The difficulty of obtaining for experiment any one kind of bacteria by itself, unmixed with others (pure cultures), rendered advance almost impossible. So conflicting were the results that the whole subject soon came into almost hopeless confusion, and very few steps were taken upon any sure basis. So difficult were the methods, so contradictory and confusing the results, because of impure cultures, that a student of to-day who wishes to look up the previous discoveries in almost any line of bacteriology need hardly go back of 1880, since he can almost rest assured that anything done earlier than that was more likely to be erroneous than correct.

The last fifteen years have, however, seen a wonderful change. The difficulties had been mostly those of methods of work, and with the ninth decade of the century these methods were simplified by Robert Koch. This simplification of method for the first time placed this line of investigation within the reach of scientists who did not have the genius of Pasteur. It was now possible to get pure cultures easily, and to obtain with such pure cultures results which were uniform and simple. It was now possible to take steps which had the stamp of accuracy upon them, and which further experiment did not disprove. From the time when these methods were thus made manageable the study of bacteria increased with a rapidity which has been fairly startling, and the information which has accumulated is almost formidable. The very rapidity with which the investigations have progressed has brought considerable confusion, from the fact that the new discoveries have not had time to be properly assimilated into knowledge. Today many facts are known whose significance is still uncertain, and a clear logical discussion of the facts of modern bacteriology is not possible. But sufficient knowledge has been accumulated and digested to show us at least the direction along which bacteriological advance is tending, and it is to the pointing out of these directions that the following pages will be devoted.

WHAT ARE BACTERIA?

The most interesting facts connected with the subject of bacteriology concern the powers and influence in Nature possessed by the bacteria. The morphological side of the subject is interesting enough to the scientist, but to him alone. Still, it is impossible to attempt to study the powers of bacteria without knowing something of the organisms themselves. To understand how they come to play an important part in Nature's processes, we must know first how they look and where they are found. A short consideration of certain morphological facts will therefore be necessary at the start.

FORM OF BACTERIA.

In shape bacteria are the simplest conceivable structures. Although there are hundreds of different species, they have only three general forms, which have been aptly compared to billiard balls, lead pencils, and corkscrews. Spheres, rods, and spirals represent all shapes. The spheres may be large or small, and may group themselves in various ways; the rods may be long or short, thick or slender; the spirals may be loosely or tightly coiled, and may have only one or two or may have many coils, and they may be flexible or stiff; but still rods, spheres, and spirals comprise all types.

In size there is some variation, though not very great. All are extremely minute, and never visible to the naked eye. The spheres vary from 0.25 u to 1.5 u (0.000012 to 0.00006 inches). The rods may be no more than 0.3 u in diameter, or may be as wide as 1.5 u to 2.5 u, and in length vary all the way from a length scarcely longer than their diameter to long threads. About the same may be said of the spiral forms. They are decidedly the smallest living organisms which our microscopes have revealed.

In their method of growth we find one of the most characteristic features. They universally have the power of multiplication by simple division or fission. Each individual elongates and then divides in the middle into two similar halves, each of which then repeats the process. This method of multiplication by simple division is the distinguishing mark which separates the bacteria from the yeasts, the latter plants multiplying by a process known as budding. Fig. 2 shows these two methods of multiplication.

While all bacteria thus multiply by division, certain differences in the details produce rather striking differences in the results. Considering first the spherical forms, we find that some species divide, as described, into two, which separate at once, and each of which in turn divides in the opposite direction, called Micrococcus, (Fig. 3). Other species divide only in one direction. Frequently they do not separate after dividing, but remain attached. Each, however, again elongates and divides again, but all still remain attached. There are thus formed long chains of spheres like strings of beads, called Streptococci (Fig. 4). Other species divide first in one direction, then at right angles to the first division, and a third division follows at right angles to the plane of the first two, thus producing solid groups of fours, eights, or sixteens (Fig 5), called Sarcina. Each different species of bacteria is uniform in its method of division, and these differences are therefore indications of differences in species, or, according to our present method of classification, the different methods of division represent different genera. All bacteria producing Streptococcus chains form a single genus Streptococcus, and all which divide in three division planes form another genus, Sarcina, etc.

The rod-shaped bacteria also differ somewhat, but to a less extent. They almost always divide in a plane at right angles to their longest dimension. But here again we find some species separating immediately after division, and thus always appearing as short rods (Fig. 6), while others remain attached after division and form long chains. Sometimes they appear to continue to increase in length without showing any signs of division, and in this way long threads are formed (Fig. 7). These threads are, however, potentially at least, long chains of short rods, and under proper conditions they will break up into such short rods, as shown in Fig. 7a. Occasionally a rod species may divide lengthwise, but this is rare. Exactly the same may be said of the spiral forms. Here, too, we find short rods and long chains, or long spiral filaments in which can be seen no division into shorter elements, but which, under certain conditions, break up into short sections.

RAPIDITY OF MULTIPLICATION.

It is this power of multiplication by division that makes bacteria agents of such significance. Their minute size would make them harmless enough if it were not for an extraordinary power of multiplication. This power of growth and division is almost incredible. Some of the species which have been carefully watched under the microscope have been found under favourable conditions to grow so rapidly as to divide every half hour, or even less. The number of offspring that would result in the course of twenty-four hours at this rate is of course easily computed. In one day each bacterium would produce over 16,500,000 descendants, and in two days about 281,500,000,000. It has been further calculated that these 281,500,000,000 would form about a solid pint of bacteria and weigh about a pound. At the end of the third day the total descendants would amount to 47,000,000,000,000, and would weigh about 16,000,000 pounds. Of course these numbers have no significance, for they are never actual or even possible numbers. Long before the offspring reach even into the millions their rate of multiplication is checked either by lack of food or by the accumulation of their own excreted products, which are injurious to them. But the figures do have interest since they show faintly what an unlimited power of multiplication these organisms have, and thus show us that in dealing with bacteria we are dealing with forces of almost infinite extent.

This wonderful power of growth is chiefly due to the fact that bacteria feed upon food which is highly organized and already in condition for absorption. Most plants must manufacture their own foods out of simpler substances, like carbonic dioxide (Co2) and water, but bacteria, as a rule, feed upon complex organic material already prepared by the previous life of plants or animals. For this reason they can grow faster than other plants. Not being obliged to make their own foods like most plants, nor to search for it like animals, but living in its midst, their rapidity of growth and multiplication is limited only by their power to seize and assimilate this food. As they grow in such masses of food, they cause certain chemical changes to take place in it, changes doubtless directly connected with their use of the material as food. Recognising that they do cause chemical changes in food material, and remembering this marvellous power of growth, we are prepared to believe them capable of producing changes wherever they get a foothold and begin to grow. Their power of feeding upon complex organic food and producing chemical changes therein, together with their marvellous power of assimilating this material as food, make them agents in Nature of extreme importance.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BACTERIA.

While bacteria are thus very simple in form, there are a few other slight variations in detail which assist in distinguishing them. The rods are sometimes very blunt at the ends, almost as if cut square across, while in other species they are more rounded and occasionally slightly tapering. Sometimes they are surrounded by a thin layer of some gelatinous substance, which forms what is called a capsule (Fig. 10). This capsule may connect them and serve as a cement, to prevent the separate elements of a chain from falling apart.

Sometimes such a gelatinous secretion will unite great masses of bacteria into clusters, which may float on the surface of the liquid in which they grow or may sink to the bottom. Such masses are called zoogloea, and their general appearance serves as one of the characters for distinguishing different species of bacteria (Fig. 10, a and b). When growing in solid media, such as a nutritious liquid made stiff with gelatine, the different species have different methods of spreading from their central point of origin. A single bacterium in the midst of such a stiffened mass will feed upon it and produce descendants rapidly; but these descendants, not being able to move through the gelatine, will remain clustered together in a mass, which the bacteriologist calls a colony. But their method of clustering, due to different methods of growth, is by no means always alike, and these colonies show great differences in general appearance. The differences appear to be constant, however, for the same species of bacteria, and hence the shape and appearance of the colony enable bacteriologists to discern different species (Fig. II). All these points of difference are of practical use to the bacteriologist in distinguishing species.

SPORE FORMATION.

In addition to their power of reproduction by simple division, many species of bacteria have a second method by means of spores. Spores are special rounded or oval bits of bacteria protoplasm capable of resisting adverse conditions which would destroy the ordinary bacteria. They arise among bacteria in two different methods.

Endogenous spores.-These spores arise inside of the rods or the spiral forms (Fig. 12). They first appear as slight granular masses, or as dark points which become gradually distinct from the rest of the rod. Eventually there is thus formed inside the rod a clear, highly refractive, spherical or oval spore, which may even be of a greater diameter than the rod producing it, thus causing it to swell out and become spindle formed [Fig. 12 c]. These spores may form in the middle or at the ends of the rods (Fig. 12). They may use up all the protoplasm of the rod in their formation, or they may use only a small part of it, the rod which forms them continuing its activities in spite of the formation of the spores within it. They are always clear and highly refractive from containing little water, and they do not so readily absorb staining material as the ordinary rods. They appear to be covered with a layer of some substance which resists the stain, and which also enables them to resist various external agencies. This protective covering, together with their small amount of water, enables them to resist almost any amount of drying, a high degree of heat, and many other adverse conditions. Commonly the spores break out of the rod, and the rod producing them dies, although sometimes the rod may continue its activity even after the spores have been produced.

Arthrogenous spores (?).-Certain species of bacteria do not produce spores as just described, but may give rise to bodies that are sometimes called arthrospores. These bodies are formed as short segments of rods. A long rod may sometimes break up into several short rounded elements, which are clear and appear to have a somewhat increased power of resisting adverse conditions. The same may happen among the spherical forms, which only in rare instances form endogenous spores. Among the spheres which form a chain of streptococci some may occasionally be slightly different from the rest. They are a little larger, and have been thought to have an increased resisting power like that of true spores (Fig. 13 b). It is quite doubtful, however, whether it is proper to regard these bodies as spores. There is no good evidence that they have any special resisting power to heat like endogenous spores, and bacteriologists in general are inclined to regard them simply as resting cells. The term arthrospores has been given to them to indicate that they are formed as joints or segments, and this term may be a convenient one to retain although the bodies in question are not true spores.

Still a different method of spore formation occurs in a few peculiar bacteria. In this case (Fig. 14) the protoplasm in the large thread breaks into many minute spherical bodies, which finally find exit. The spores thus formed may not be all alike, differences in size being noticed. This method of spore formation occurs only in a few special forms of bacteria.

The matter of spore formation serves as one of the points for distinguishing species. Some species do not form spores, at least under any of the conditions in which they have been studied. Others form them readily in almost any condition, and others again only under special conditions which are adverse to their life. The method of spore formation is always uniform for any single species. Whatever be the method of the formation of the spore, its purpose in the life of the bacterium is always the same. It serves as a means of keeping the species alive under conditions of adversity. Its power of resisting heat or drying enables it to live where the ordinary active forms would be speedily killed. Some of these spores are capable of resisting a heat of 180 degrees C. (360 degrees F.) for a short time, and boiling water they can resist for a long time. Such spores when subsequently placed under favourable conditions will germinate and start bacterial activity anew.

MOTION.

Some species of bacteria have the power of active motion, and may be seen darting rapidly to and fro in the liquid in which they are growing. This motion is produced by flagella which protrude from the body. These flagella (Fig. 15) arise from a membrane surrounding the bacterium, but have an intimate connection with the protoplasmic content. Their distribution is different in different species of bacteria. Some species have a single flagellum at one end (Fig. 15 a). Others have one at each end (Fig. 15 b). Others, again, have, at least just before dividing, a bunch at one or both ends (Fig. 15 c and d), while others, again, have many flagella distributed all over the body in dense profusion (Fig. 15 e). These flagella keep up a lashing to and fro in the liquid, and the lashing serves to propel the bacteria through the liquid.

INTERNAL STRUCTURE.

It is hardly possible to say much about the structure of the bacteria beyond the description of their external forms. With all the variations in detail mentioned, they are extraordinarily simple, and about all that can be seen is their external shape. Of course, they have some internal structure, but we know very little in regard to it. Some microscopists have described certain appearances which they think indicate internal structure. Fig. 16 shows some of these appearances. The matter is as yet very obscure, however. The bacteria appear to have a membranous covering which sometimes is of a cellulose nature. Within it is protoplasm which shows various uncertain appearances. Some microscopists have thought they could find a nucleus, and have regarded bacteria as cells with inclosed nucleii (Figs. 10 a and 15 f). Others have regarded the whole bacterium as a nucleus without any protoplasm, while others, again, have concluded that the discerned internal structure is nothing except an appearance presented by the physical arrangement of the protoplasm. While we may believe that they have some internal structure, we must recognise that as yet microscopists have not been able to make it out. In short, the bacteria after two centuries of study appear to us about as they did at first. They must still be described as minute spheres, rods, or spirals, with no further discernible structure, sometimes motile and sometimes stationary, sometimes producing spores and sometimes not, and multiplying universally by binary fission. With all the development of the modern microscope we can hardly say more than this. Our advance in knowledge of bacteria is connected almost wholly with their methods of growth and the effects they produce in Nature.

ANIMALS OR PLANTS?

There has been in the past not a little question as to whether bacteria should be rightly classed with plants or with animals. They certainly have characters which ally them with both. Their very common power of active independent motion and their common habit of living upon complex bodies for foods are animal characters, and have lent force to the suggestion that they are true animals. But their general form, their method of growth and formation of threads, and their method of spore formation are quite plantlike. Their general form is very similar to a group of low green plants known as Oscillaria. Fig. 17 shows a group of these Oscillariae, and the similarity of this to some of the thread-like bacteria is decided. The Oscillariae are, however, true plants, and are of a green colour. Bacteria are therefore to- day looked upon as a low type of plant which has no chlorophyll, [Footnote: Chlorophyll is the green colouring matter of plants.] but is related to Oscillariae. The absence of the chlorophyll has forced them to adopt new relations to food, and compels them to feed upon complex foods instead of the simple ones, which form the food of green plants. We may have no hesitation, then, in calling them plants. It is interesting to notice that with this idea their place in the organic world is reduced to a small one systematically. They do not form a class by themselves, but are simply a subclass, or even a family, and a family closely related to several other common plants. But the absence of chlorophyll and the resulting peculiar life has brought about a curious anomaly. Whereas their closest allies are known only to botanists, and are of no interest outside of their systematic relations, the bacteria are familiar to every one, and are demanding the life attention of hundreds of investigators. It is their absence of chlorophyll and their consequent dependence upon complex foods which has produced this anomaly.

CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIA.

While it has generally been recognised that bacteria are plants, any further classification has proved a matter of great difficulty, and bacteriologists find it extremely difficult to devise means of distinguishing species. Their extreme simplicity makes it no easy matter to find points by which any species can be recognised. But in spite of their similarity, there is no doubt that many different species exist. Bacteria which appear to be almost identical, under the microscope prove to have entirely different properties, and must therefore be regarded as distinct species. But how to distinguish them has been a puzzle. Microscopists have come to look upon the differences in shape, multiplication, and formation of spores as furnishing data sufficient to enable them to divide the bacteria into genera. The genus Bacillus, for instance, is the name given to all rod-shaped bacteria which form endogenous spores, etc. But to distinguish smaller subdivisions it has been found necessary to fall back upon other characters, such as the shape of the colony produced in solid gelatine, the power to produce disease, or to oxidize nitrites, etc. Thus at present the different species are distinguished rather by their physiological than their morphological characters. This is an unsatisfactory basis of classification, and has produced much confusion in the attempts to classify bacteria. The problem of determining the species of bacteria is to-day a very difficult one, and with our best methods is still unsatisfactorily solved. A few species of marked character are well known, and their powers of action so well understood that they can be readily recognised; but of the great host of bacteria studied, the large majority have been so slightly experimented upon that their characters are not known, and it is impossible, therefore, to distinguish many of them apart. We find that each bacteriologist working in any special line commonly keeps a list of the bacteria which he finds, with such data in regard to them as he has collected. Such a list is of value to him, but commonly of little value to other bacteriologists from the insufficiency of the data. Thus it happens that a large part of the different species of bacteria described in literature to- day have been found and studied by one investigator alone. By him they have been described and perhaps named. Quite likely the same species may have been found by two or three other bacteriologists, but owing to the difficulty of comparing results and the incompleteness of the descriptions the identity of the species is not discovered, and they are probably described again under different names. The same process may be repeated over and over again, until the same species of bacterium will come to be known by several different names, as it has been studied by different observers.

VARIATION OF BACTERIA.

This matter is made even more confusing by the fact that any species of bacterium may show more or less variation. At one time in the history of bacteriology, a period lasting for many years, it was the prevalent opinion that there was no constancy among bacteria, but that the same species might assume almost any of the various forms and shapes, and possess various properties. Bacteria were regarded by some as stages in the life history of higher plants. This question as to whether bacteria remain constant in character for any considerable length of time has ever been a prominent one with bacteriologists, and even to-day we hardly know what the final answer will be. It has been demonstrated beyond peradventure that some species may change their physiological characters. Disease bacteria, for instance, under certain conditions lose their powers of developing disease. Species which sour milk, or others which turn gelatine green, may lose their characters. Now, since it is upon just such physiological characters as these that we must depend in order to separate different species of bacteria from each other, it will be seen that great confusion and uncertainty will result in our attempts to define species. Further, it has been proved that there is sometimes more or less of a metamorphosis in the life history of certain species of bacteria. The same species may form a short rod, or a long thread, or break up into spherical spores, and thus either a short rod, or a thread, or a spherical form may belong to the same species. Other species may be motile at one time and stationary at another, while at a third period it is a simple mass of spherical spores. A spherical form, when it lengthens before dividing, appears as a short rod, and a short rod form after dividing may be so short as to appear like a spherical organism.

With all these reasons for confusion, it is not to be wondered at that no satisfactory classification of bacteria has been reached, or that different bacteriologists do not agree as to what constitutes a species, or whether two forms are identical or not. But with all the confusion there is slowly being obtained something like system. In spite of the fact that species may vary and show different properties under different conditions, the fundamental constancy of species is everywhere recognised to-day as a fact. The members of the same species may show different properties under different conditions, but it is believed that under identical conditions the properties will be constant. It is no more possible to convert one species into another than it is among the higher orders of plants. It is believed that bacteria do form a group of plants by themselves, and are not to be regarded as stages in the history of higher plants. It is believed that, together with a considerable amount of variability and an occasional somewhat long life history with successive stages, there is also an essential constancy. A systematic classification has been made which is becoming more or less satisfactory. We are constantly learning more and more of the characters, so that they can be recognised in different places by different observers. It is the conviction of all who work with bacteria that, in spite of the difficulties, it is only a matter of time when we shall have a classification and description of bacteria so complete as to characterize the different species accurately.

Even with our present incomplete knowledge of what characterizes a species, it is necessary to use some names. Bacteria are commonly given a generic name based upon their microscopic appearance. There are only a few of these names. Micrococcus, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Sarcina, Bacterium, Bacillus, Spirillum, are all the names in common use applying to the ordinary bacteria. There are a few others less commonly used. To this generic name a specific name is commonly added, based upon some physiological character. For example, Bacillus typhosus is the name given to the bacillus which causes typhoid fever. Such names are of great use when the species is a common and well-known one, but of doubtful value for less-known species It frequently happens that a bacteriologist makes a study of the bacteria found in a certain locality, and obtains thus a long list of species hitherto unknown. In these cases it is common simply to number these species rather than name them. This method is frequently advisable, since the bacteriologist can seldom hunt up all bacteriological literature with sufficient accuracy to determine whether some other bacteriologist may not have found the same species in an entirely different locality. One bacteriologist, for example, finds some seventy different species of bacteria in different cheeses. He studies them enough for his own purposes, but not sufficiently to determine whether some other person may not have found the same species perhaps in milk or water. He therefore simply numbers them-a method which conveys no suggestion as to whether they may be new species or not. This method avoids the giving of separate names to the same species found by different observers, and it is hoped that gradually accumulating knowledge will in time group together the forms which are really identical, but which have been described by different observers.

WHERE BACTERIA ARE FOUND.

There are no other plants or animals so universally found in Nature as the bacteria. It is this universal presence, together with their great powers of multiplication, which renders them of so much importance in Nature. They exist almost everywhere on the surface of the earth. They are in the soil, especially at its surface. They do not extend to very great depths of soil, however, few existing below four feet of soil. At the surface they are very abundant, especially if the soil is moist and full of organic material. The number may range from a few hundred to one hundred millions per gramme. [Footnote: One gramme is fifteen grains.] The soil bacteria vary also in species, some two-score different species having been described as common in soil. They are in all bodies of water, both at the surface and below it. They are found at considerable depths in the ocean. All bodies of fresh water contain them, and all sediments in such bodies of water are filled with bacteria. They are in streams of running water in even greater quantity than in standing water. This is simply because running streams are being constantly supplied with water which has been washing the surface of the country and thus carrying off all surface accumulations. Lakes or reservoirs, however, by standing quiet allow the bacteria to settle to the bottom, and the water thus gets somewhat purified. They are in the air, especially in regions of habitation. Their numbers are greatest near the surface of the ground, and decrease in the upper strata of air. Anything which tends to raise dust increases the number of bacteria in the air greatly, and the dust and emanations from the clothes of people crowded in a close room fill the air with bacteria in very great numbers. They are found in excessive abundance in every bit of decaying matter wherever it may be. Manure heaps, dead bodies of animals, decaying trees, filth and slime and muck everywhere are filled with them, for it is in such places that they find their best nourishment. The bodies of animals contain them in the mouth, stomach, and intestine in great numbers, and this is, of course, equally true of man. On the surface of the body they cling in great quantity; attached to the clothes, under the finger nails, among the hairs, in every possible crevice or hiding place in the skin, and in all secretions. They do not, however, occur in the tissues of a healthy individual, either in the blood, muscle, gland, or any other organ. Secretions, such as milk, urine, etc., always contain them, however, since the bacteria do exist in the ducts of the glands which conduct the secretions to the exterior, and thus, while the bacteria are never in the healthy gland itself, they always succeed in contaminating the secretion as it passes to the exterior. Not only higher animals, but the lower animals also have their bodies more or less covered with bacteria. Flies have them on their feet, bees among their hairs, etc.

In short, wherever on the face of Nature there is a lodging place for dust there will be found bacteria. In most of these localities they are dormant, or at least growing only a little. The bacteria clinging to the dry hair can grow but little, if at all, and those in pure water multiply very little. When dried as dust they are entirely dormant. But each individual bacterium or spore has the potential power of multiplication already noticed, and as soon as it by accident falls upon a place where there is food and moisture it will begin to multiply. Everywhere in Nature, then, exists this group of organisms with its almost inconceivable power of multiplication, but a power held in check by lack of food. Furnish them with food and their potential powers become actual. Such food is provided by the dead bodies of animals or plants, or by animal secretions, or from various other sources. The bacteria which are fortunate enough to get furnished with such food material continue to feed upon it until the food supply is exhausted or their growth is checked in some other way. They may be regarded, therefore, as a constant and universal power usually held in check. With their universal presence and their powers of producing chemical changes in food material, they are ever ready to produce changes in the face of Nature, and to these changes we will now turn.