:::I:::b'I:~~~t~_'::_i~~'~:_~:~_II::I'::J:~=:_ (days) (days)! I 190ft I I I i

Transcription

1 9 No. -(contin'lfjed) Mule Mule 364. Mule 360. Donkey foal 3. Donkey foal 32. VRUS. - ::::::b':~~~t~_'::_i~~'~:_~:~_::'::j:~=:_ (days) (days)! 90ft i 6 3 i R t! R? Aug. 4 S Tzn. 8 R D t 3 R t Sept. 9: S. 3 Polyv. V R t Simult R&D 9 9 Rt 4 8 R? 3 Rt l Killed on account of debilit.y, Sept. 8, 908. R-Reaction. R?-Doubtful reaction. Rt-Reaction and died. R&D-Reaction with dikkop. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died. 8

2 A~g. 98 EXPERMENT TYPE, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, VRus. G Date of en. njection, Species. No , Reaction from. ncub. nj. Orig. Gen. Date , , V Julv,; S June (days} S S July 2 to S S Aug foal S. 2 S ii Aug. 20 to 26 2 to Sept. 2 l Aug. 20 to ~

3 ~ No. -( continued) Mule 339. Donkey foal 3R. Donkey foal, 366. Donkey foal 366. Re- ncub action. + R Result,. Tested. ' (days) (days) R? Aug. 2 Sept. 9 July No R Aug ; -., 2 Oct. 3,. - Aug j., 2 Sept. 9 R? - - Rt R &. D Sept. 9 Rt - VRus. nj. Orig. ; Qual. Gen / S. 3 Tzn. 320 S. 3 - Polyv. V S Tzn S. 3 Tzn. 320 S. 3 - Polyv. V S. 3 Tzn. 320., S. 2 - Poly~. S. 3 Tzn. 320 V S. 3 - Polyv. V S: 3 - Polyv. V --- Result R Rt R&D - Slight R RDt 8 No R RDt R -- Re marks. Simu t. 300 ('.c. serum. Simu t. 300,,, Di ed of de bility, Oc t. 4, 908. Simul t. 300 C.c. serum., R-Reaction. R?-Doubtful reaction. Rt-Reaction and died. R&D-Reaction with dikkop. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died.,

4 00 EXPERMENT TYPE V Generation V Generation: V Generation Vn Generation: V Generation, V Generation. V Generation: VRUS. Gen. ~j::ti~~. Species. : No. ---~ Reaction from. ncub i -=- ~;~::---:::- ~~28--:-~ ~:~--:-[~~~!---::-- ~~~ nj. Orig. Gen. i Date. ; July 4 S. 0! 8 July 8 to 2 4 June July June S June June 28 to ;) July 4 Aug S Aug. 23 to 8 Sept Tune S July S July 9 to 2 4 Gen. Date of njection V:Rus. V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, Species. No. Reaction from. ncnb. nj. Orig.! Gen. Date. i! ~; ~~~~:::- ~:~~~~~:~-~- ~~;~~~:;t~o~~ (dar Aug July S i Aug S Aug. 2 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ -

5 No. f>-(continued) Mule Mule 392. Donkey foal =--=--=----=-=--=-=-=--=---=;-=;===========: VRUS. \ ac~i~n. r;c;'t.. Result. Tested. loj. Orig.~al. - [G-en. Result. Remarks i , (days) (days) Rt 6 Rt Aug. S. 3 Tzn. 8 Rt Simult July 4 S. 3 Polyv. V Simult. 400 C.c. polyv. serum RDt Sept. 9 S. 3 Polyv. V[- RDt Simult. 300 R? Aug. 4 S Tzn. 2 Rt After 2 days 200 c.c. serum. 6 0 RDt Mule 339. Donkey foal foal 394. foal _.., acti)n. -+ R. es e. -- VRus. Re- ncub. Resl-lt. T t d --- ~-- Result. ~r>(dti-~ lnj. Orig. Qual. Gen. Remarks Sept. 9 S. 3 Polyv. V Simult. 300 Aug Tzn Sept. 9 Polyv. V - R't 368 Tzn. 6 Rt 3 Days later, \ 300 c.c. serum. R--RAaction. R?-Doubtful reaction. Rt-Reaction and died. RD-Reaction with dikkop. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died.

6 02 ANALYSS OF RESULTS-TYPE A. Susceptibility. Results.. Of subcutaneous injections into susceptible horses, 4 reacted and recovered, 4 reacted and died, 33 did not react. 2. Of intrajugular injections into susceptible horses, 9 reacted and died, 8 did not react. 3. Of subcutaneous injections into susceptible mules, 4 reacted and recovered, did not react. 4. Of 2 intrajugular injections into susceptible mules, reacted and recovered, reacted and died. Taking these figures out according to percentages, Subcutaneous injections into horses caused mules ntra jugular horses mules Conclusions. Reactions. 0/ Not Deaths. No Reaction. % % Nil sufficient numbers.. The susceptibility of mules is greater than that of horses. 2. The subcutaneous injection of virus, type 2694, is more fatal for horses' than for mules. 3. The intrajugular injection into horse or mule is more fatal than the subcutaneous injection. 4. The subcutaneous injection was resisted to a greater extent by horses than by mules. B. Resistance.. Four horses which did not react to the subcutaneous or intrajugular injection of virus, type 2694, all died when tested with the same type. 2. Of 4 horses which did not react to the subcutaneous or intrajugular injection of virus, type 2694, 9 died and reacted when tested with the same strain, different type. 3. Of 8 horses which did not react to the subcutaneous or intrajugular injection of the virus, type 2694, reacted and died when tested later with a different strain of virus. 4. One mule which did 'not react to the subcutaneous injection died when tested later with a different strain.. Three horses which did not react to the subcutaneous injection of 2 c.c. virus died when injected intrajugularly with the same dose of the same virus. 6. Two horses which did not react to the subcutaneous injection of 2 C.L virus died when injected intrajugularly with 0 c.c. same virus.

7 03. One horse which did not react to a subcutaneous injection of 0 c.c. nor to an intrajugular.injection of 2 c.c. gave a reaction when tested with the same strain, different type. 8. One horse which did not react to a subcutaneous injection nor to an intrajugular injection of 2 c.c., and which did not react to a subcutaneous injection of c.c. virus of a different type, gave a reaction when injected subcutaneously with 3 c.c. virus, different strain. 9. Of two horses which did not react to a subcutaneous or an intrajugular injection of 2 c.c. virus, one reacted and the other died when tested with virus of a different type. 0. One horse which did not react to a subcutaneous injection and two intrajugular injections died when tested with a different type, same strain. \. One horse which did not react to a subcutaneous injection of 2 c.c. virus died when tested with the same virus, different type. Results. C. Virulency.. Of 2 susceptible horses injected with horse Vrus, reacted and recovered, 0 reacted and died, 4 did not react. 2. Of 3 susceptible mules injected with horse Vrus, 2 reacted and recovered, did not react. 3. Of 9 susceptible horses injected with mule Vrus, 2 reacted and recovered, 8 reacted and died, 9 did not react. 4. Of 4 susceptible mules injected with mule virus, 3 reacted and recovered, reacted and died.. Of 6 susceptible horses injected with donkey foal virus, reacted and recovered, reacted and died, 0 did not react. Taking these figures out according to percentages, Reactions. The injection of horses with horse virus caused 44 mules 6 horses mule mules 00 horses donkey foal virus caused 40 Conclusions. % No Reaction. 0/0 % Nil. Deaths The injection of mule virus caused the greatest percentage of reactions. 2. The injection of mule virus caused the greatest mortality. 3. The least mortality and the least reactions were caused by the injection of donkey foal virus.

8 04 4. virus failed to cause reactions'in a greater percentage of horses than in mules.. Mule virus failed to cause reaction in a greater percentage of horses. 6. Donkey virus failed to produce reactions in the greatest percentage. D. Variability. Hh Gen. M, 24. th Gen. M % R. nth Gen. M % R. th Gen. H % R. M % R. 8th Gen (20 animals). (4 animals). M. 3~2-i'0 % R. (4 animals). M % R. (3 animals). (6 animals). D.F % R. Four D.F. various -83 % R. (2 animals). (6 animals). H. 36~)-20 % R. ( animals). \ Conclusions... The virulency of virus is not affected by the generation. t varies within the same generation between the horses, mules, and donkeys, and again between the various lots of donkeys and two different mules. 2. t is remarkable that the virus of the mule caused more reactions than that of horses. 3. The virulency was particularly affected by mule E. nfluence of dose and manner of injection. njections of virus of type 2694.'. n the dose of 2 c.c. subcutaneously, 3 reacted and recovered, 8 reacted and died, 8 did not react. Of these 8 non-reacters, were tested later by subcutaneous injections of and 2 c.c. (same strain), all reacted and died. One was tested with 0 c.c. and reacted and died; 6 were tested with 3 c.c. (different strain), all reacted and died. 2. n the dose of 3 c.c. subcutaneously, 3 reacted and recovered. 2 reacted and died, 2 did not react. When tested later by subcutaneous injection of 2 c.c. (different strain), both reacted and died. 3. n the dose of c.c. subcutaneously, 2 reacted and recovered~ 2 reacted and died, did not react. Of these non-reacters, 4 were testedisubcutaneously with 2 C.c. (different strain), all reacted and died; and was tested with 2 c.c. (same strain) and reacted and died.

9 0 4. n the dose of 0 c.c. subcutaneously, did not react. Four were tested later with the same strain and reacted and recovered; was tested with a different strain and reacted and recovered (doses, 2, and 3 c.c.).. n the dose of 20 c.c. subcutaneously, reacted and recovered. 6. n the dose of 0 c.c. subcutaneously, did not react. When tested later by subcutaneous injection of 2 c.c. (same strain) this animal reacted and died.. n the dose of 2 c.c. intrajugularly, 2 reacted and died. 8. n the dose of c.c. intrajugularly, 2 reacted and died. 9. n the dose of 0 c.c. intrajugularly, reacted and recovered.

10 06 EXPERMENT W;th Mule Virus, Type 232, HORSE 08. Generation, Generation, Generation, V Generation. --==----- VRus. ---~ Gen. l D?'. of Species. No _.-- Reaction from. ncub. -.~ ~~~~~_- :;U~-- ~:~~~ i~:~ ~~~;~ ~p~9r~; (d~ V Feb S April 2 Mar. 20 Aug. April 6 Mule i 343 i R. S. 2 2 March 2 to 30 Aug. 24 to 28 2 April 2 to July S pr not vi V Aug April S. S Aug. No reaction 908. April4 April 2 to May May April 26 to May : i 4 May 9 to 26 i 6 July June 3 to 8 4 July 28 to Aug. Vn May 2 V Oct Mule to 22 May April2 Oct. 2 to 24 2 ] to to

11 0 No.6. 'Tzaneen strain,.fifth generauon. (ORGN). )lule 96. )lule 996. Mules, Natal. Mule 24. J Re- ncub. a ction. ; + R. d-;;-y-;)!r.;;; y,;j ob ably.xu lent i J ] i Result Tested R &, D! April 23 2 May i R - - RDt Rt 908. Recovd. April 20 2 May 90. nde. R - Aug. 22 Oct. 4 R? - Nov Recovd. May 2 June 2 - May 23 R &' D - June 4 RDt Recovd. - Aug. 4 Rt Sept. 2 Recovd. - Oct VRUS ~---- rnj. Odg Qual. Gen. Result S Tzn. S Ord Tzn Bul S Tzn P.P.R. 30 CD V 322 CD V S CD Bul. - Slight R 326 CD Mixt. - RDt S Tzn CD 3 Slight R 322 CD V 20 CD V 3494 P.P.R. T. 344 Simp. - N~'R 800 T Tzn. 9 R 0000 S. 2 ' 349 T S. 3 - Polyv. V j =[ R emarks Died 2 /4 /08 of pneumonia interstitial. Simult. 0 Simult. 00 After 48 hrs. 200 c.c. serum. Simut. 00 :: :: R &' D -, - i R-Reaction. RD-Reaction with dikkop. R?-Doubtful reaction. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died. Rt-Reaction and died.

12 08 EXPERMENT TYPE VRus. V Generation. V Generation, V Generation, V Generation, Gen. f?'tet of Species. No. ~ Reaction from. ncub. --~: ~~~:~ ~~ ;~---90s~--- (d;y-;) V May Mule 3433 S. 336 April29 May to ,,29., to 20 4 Donkey foal 320,, S ,,29,,2 to 2 29 May 22 to June 8 29 May 30 to June June 6 to 3 8 June Mule to 4 to 22 2 to to 6 4 to July 4 4 lx May 2 June 3 Mule Mule '3~b July 4 to to 4,,29 8 to 4 May 20 May3toJune4 0 June j

13 09 No. 6-(conUnued) Mule 24. Mule 232. Mule Mule 336. VRUS. Re- ncuh. --~ --~ i action. + R. Result. Tested... n]. Ong. Qual. Gen. Result. Remarks. (';';;(d;;-~~~~~--,m08.~~~~~i~~~-'---' ' Recovd. June 2 S CD CD V 30 CD V 3494 P.P.R. ~) ] aecovd. RDt -,. R&D Recovd. RDt Rt Rt Recovd. ndef. R - 2 rreg. R D - and Piro. e',lui - 2 June 30 July 23 June July 29 June 26 S. 2 T S. 3 S. 2 S CD 3~~ CD V 30 CD V 3494 P.P.R Tzn. Polyv. V Tzn. Polyv. V 3 R 3 nd~i. R 20 R&D 2 Slight R R Rt R Simult. 00 Died 20 / /08 of pneumonia. After 48 hrs. 200 c.c. serum. R-Reaction. R&D-Reaction with dikkop. Rt-Reaction and died. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died.

14 EXPERMEwr' TYPE V Generation, V Generation, V Generation,.- VRUS. - Gen. Date of Species. No. Reaction from. ncub. njection. nj. Orig. Gen. Date., _~- --, (days} X May 2 Mule 329 S May 9 i June 9 May S June 3 i J July.4 2 Mule S. 2 2., June 8 to 23 T X May 2 2.June Mule 3: i,,3 Mule 4 Donkey foil July 4 i 2 June 23 Mule S S. 2.'io S s : _9_ 8 May 29 to June June 4 to 2,,8.. 0 to 2 8 -,,8 -,,8 June 26 to July 3 June 22 (une2toju!y8: 4

15 No. 6-(conl' n'ued) Mule 336. Donkey foal 320. Mule Re- ncub. action. + R. VRus. Result. Tested. Result. Remarks. \ nj. Orig. Qual. Gen. _ (days) (days),t, ,Tune 3~ S ndef. R - D,,9.' July 4 S Sept. 2 T. 384 ndef. R June 9 July 2 Aug. 4 Sept ' S S.3 - RDt No i July 3 S RDt nde. R RDt nd~f. R Rt Recovd. 2 3 Au!. 2 Sept. - - June i July 2 i S S. 3 T S. 3 S. 3 i Tzn. Polyv. V Tzn. Tzn. Polyv. V CD V Polyv. V Polyv. V Rt 9 No R 6 R&D 24 R &Piro. equi '8 Slight R 6 Rt 8 R? Slight R R Slight R R-Reaction. R&D-Reaction with dikkop. R?-Doubtful reaction. RDt-Reaction with dikkop and died. Rt-Reaction and died. Simult. 300 Simult. 300 After 3 days 00 c.c. pol. serum

16 2 ANALYSS OF RESULTS-TYPE 232. A. Susceptibil:ty. Results.. Of 23 subcutaneous inj ections into susceptible horses, reacted and recovered, 3 reacted and died, did not react. 2. Of intrajugular injections into susceptible horses, 3 reacted and died, 2 did not react. 3. Of subcutaneous injections into susceptible mules, 0 reacted and recovered, 2 reacted and died, did not react. 4. Of 4 intrajugular injections into susceptible mules, reacted and recovered, 3 did not react. Taking these figures out according to percentages, No Reactions. Deaths. Reaction. % % % Subcutaneous injections into horses caused mules ntrajugular horses mules 2 Nil. Conclusions.. s were more susceptible than mules. 2. The susceptibility of horses is greater than that of mules a subcutaneous injection. B. Resistance. Results.. One horse injected subcutaneously with 2 c.c. virus did not react, but died when injected with the same virus intrajugularly. 2. One mule injected subcutaneously and intrajugularly in the dose of 2 c.c. did not react, but died when injected with virus of the same type, previous generation. 3. One horse injected subcutaneously and intrajugularly in the dose of 2 c.c. did not react, but when tested with different type gave a doubtful reaction, and on a succeeding test with a different strain a slight reaction resulted. 4. One mule injected subcutaneously and intrajugularly in the dose of 2 c.c. virus did not react, but showed a reaction when tested with a different strain. C. Virulency. RestZts.. One susceptible horse injected with horse virus reacted and died. 2. Of 2 susceptible mules injected with horse VrUS, reacted and recovered, did not react. 3. Of 2 susceptible horses injected w:i.th mule virus, reacted and recovered, 4 reacted and died, 2 did not react. 4. Of 4 susceptible mules injected with mule virus, 0 reacted and recovered, 2 reacted and died, 2 did not react.. Of susceptible horses injected with donkey foal virus, reacted and died, 4 did not react. 6. Of 2 susceptible mules injected with donkey foal virus, 2 did not react.

17 3 Taking these figures out according to percentages, The injection of horses with horse virus caused mules )' horses mule mules horses donkey foal virus caused Conclusions. Heactions. % Deaths. % 6 20 No Reaction. %. s were more susceptible to the injection of mule virus than mules. 2. The injection of mule virus into horses caused the greatest mortality. 3. A very high percentage of animals remained refractory to the injection of donkey foal virus. lith Gen; (ith Gen. th Gen. D. Variability. M % R. (8 animals). M. 32~8-00 % R. ( animals). M % R. (4 animals). ~J th Gen. D.B' % R. (9 animals). M % R. ( animab). Conclusions.. n the case of this type the generation seems to affect the virus, but, notwithstanding this, the virulency remains high. 2. Donkey foal virus after passing through a donkey has decreased enormously in virulency. E. nfluence of dose and manner of injection. njection of virus of type n the dose of 2 c.c. subcutaneously, 3 reacted and recove!ed, 6 reacted and died, 8 did not react. Of these 8 non-reacters, 4 were tested later by a subcutaneous injection of 2 c.c., 3 reacted and died, reacted and recovered. One was injected with 2 c.c. intrajugularly and reacted and died, 3 were injected with 3 c.c. subcutaneously, all 3 reacted and recovered. 2. n the dose of C.c. subcutaneously, reacted and recovered, did not react. When tested later by intrajugular injection of C.c., this animal reacted and died. 3. n the dose of 2 c.c. intrajugularly, did not react. When tested later by intrajugular injection of 0 c.c., this animal reacted and recovered. 4. n the dose of c.c. intrajugularly, reacted and recovered, reacted and died.. n the dose of 0 c.c. intrajugularly, reacted and recovered, did not react. When tested later by subcutaneous injection of 2 C.c. this animal, reacted and died

18 2 4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS GVEN BY VAROUS TYPES ARRANGED ACCORDNG TO DOSE. Percentage of Reactions caused by injection of Virus in Varying Doses (as per Col. ). - ~~,~ ~~r~ ! ::::::::~:~~~:~ -i-,-i-i-~-~-li--i- ' 3 c.c. c.c c.c c.c. ntraj~gular i~jection'~ o/~ ~:~: 3 c.c. c.c. : 2 0 c.c. :. 33,,0 c.c :~~~~-~~ ~:---T-:--~~--~~-r-~~---:--. Arranged according to virulency, the various types show the following ascending order :-24, 289, 232, 96, 2694, and The differences in the virulency is particularly marked; 289 and 24 correspond, and these two vira both originated from the Natal virus. Again with types 239, 2694, and 232, these all directly descended from type 24, yet 232 only causes 2 per cent. reactions, whereas 239 and 2694 caused per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively. CONCLUSONS.. The virus Tzaneen has in no instance been virulent for all mules injected; this virulency differs, so to say, from animal to animal; one particular animal seems to influence the virus in such a way that this virulency is either decreased or increased. 2. This reduction of virulency is by no means the result of the dose of virus or of method of injection; small and large doses, injected subcutaneously or intrajugularly, equally fail to produce reactions. 3. This difference in virulency is either due to the virus itself or to the injected animal, but considering that animals which resisted quantities of virus of one particular type, subcutaneously or intrajugularly, contract horsesickness from a subsequent subcutaneous injection of a smaller quantity, it shows that it is not so much the resistance of the animal but the virulency of the virus of the given animal. 4. t is probably correct to conclude that both animal and virus must be in a certain relation to each other before a reaction can ensue. G.-FEVER REACTONS N HORSES SMULATNG HORSE-SCKNESS. n a publication of mine, which appeared in the Deutsche Wochenschrift Thiermedicine in 90, described a fever reaction in horses under the title of Ephemeral fever in horses, resembling horse-sickness in character, but of a shorter duration and which did not end fatally.