Abstract
SINCE Darwin, in his “Journal of Researches,” wrote of the occurrence of hydrophobia in Central and South America, much has been learned of the nature of this disease. He says: “In so strange a disease, some information might possibly be gained by considering the circumstances under which it originates in distant climates; for it is improbable that a dog already bitten should have been brought to these distant countries.” It is now known that such a possibility must receive careful consideration. In the first place, it has now been placed beyond doubt that hydrophobia is a specific infective disease, which so far as can at present be ascertained, does not originate de novo, but can only be introduced into a district or country by being passed on from animal to animal, different species of which, however, are affected in very varying degree. In the second place, the disease may remain latent for a long period after an animal has been-infected—through a bite, usually; for this reason it is sometimes a very difficult matter to trace the infection to its source, with the result that the method of spread of the disease was for long very imperfectly understood, although the means for preventing its extension, when once it had obtained a foothold in a district, had long been elaborated and found to be thoroughly efficient when properly applied.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
The New Muzzling Order. Nature 53, 371–372 (1896). https://doi.org/10.1038/053371a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/053371a0