Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:01:30.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tuberculosis in Captive Wild Animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Stanley Griffith
Affiliation:
(From the Pathological Department, Field Laboratories, University of Cambridge.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The results of this investigation show that tuberculosis in captive wild mammals may be caused by any one of the three types of tubercle bacilli—human, bovine or avian.

In the Primates, which under experimental conditions are susceptible in an equal degree to bovine and human tubercle bacilli, natural tuberculosis may result from infection with either type. The human tubercle bacillus is however found more frequently than the bovine bacillus. Taking the condition of the regionary lymphatic glands of the body as an indication of the probable portal of entry of the infecting bacilli, e.g. greater enlargement and more advanced caseation of the thoracic than of the abdominal lymphatic glands as denoting respiratory infection, it would appear that the monkey may become infected with bovine tubercle bacilli, as well as with human tubercle bacilli, not only through the alimentary tract but also by inhalation.

Cultures of acid-fast bacilli were obtained from four caymans, one frog and one snake, which died in the Zoological Society's Gardens.

The strains from the four caymans were identical and indistinguishable from Aronson's Mycobacterium marinum.

The snake strain closely resembled the fish tubercle bacillus of Bataillon, Dubard and Terre.

The frog strain could not be identified with any of the cold-blooded strains of tubercle bacilli mentioned above.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

References

REFERENCES

Cobbett, (1917). The Causes of Tuberculosis, Cambridge University Press, p. 511.Google Scholar
Fox, (1923). Disease in Captive Wild Mammals and Birds. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa.Google Scholar
Fox, (1928). J. Amer. Veter. Med. Assoc. 72, (n.s. vol. 25, No. 6), p. 792.Google Scholar
Griffith, F. (1911). Final Report, Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, App. vol. iv, p. 149.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. S. (1917). J. Pathol. and Bacteriol. 21, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, A. S. (1928). J. Comp. Path. and Therap. 41, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, (1925). J. Pathol. and Bacteriol. 28, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitsch, (1906). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitsch, (1907). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 1810.Google Scholar
Scott, (1927). Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 174.Google Scholar
Scott, and Beattie, (1928). J. Pathol. and Bacteriol. 31, 70, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, (1896). Trans. Assoc. Amer. Physicians, 11, 76.Google Scholar