Journal of Practical Medicine

, relates a case of a rabid female badger attacking two boys. She bit them both, but she fastened on the thigh of one of them, and was destroyed in the act of sucking his blood. The poor fellow died hydrophobous, but the other escaped. This fact, certainly, gives us no idea of the general character of the disease in this animal; but it speaks volumes as to its ferocity.

[Rabies] in the Wolf

. — Rabies is ushered in by nearly the same symptoms, and pursues the same course in the wolf us in the dog, with this difference, which would be readily expected, that his ferocity and the mischief which he accomplishes are much greater. The dog hunts out his own species, and his fury is principally directed against them; although, if he meets with a flock of sheep, or a herd of cattle, he readily attacks them, and, perhaps, bites the greater part of them. The dog, however, frequently turns out of his way to avoid the human being, and seldom attacks him without provocation. The wolf, on the contrary, although he commits fearful ravages among the sheep and cattle, searches out the human being as his favorite prey. He conceals himself near the entrance to the village, and steals upon and wounds every passenger that he can get at. There are several accounts of more than twenty persons having been bitten by one wolf; and there is a fearful history of sixteen persons perishing from the bite of one of these animals. This is in perfect agreement with the account which I have given of the connexion between the previous temper and habits of the rabid dog, and the mischief that he effects under the influence of this malady. The wolf, as he wanders in the forest, regards the human being as his persecutor and foe; and, in the paroxysm of rabid fury, he is most eager to avenge himself on his natural enemy. Strange stories are told of the arts to which he has recourse in order to accomplish his purpose. In the great majority of cases he steals unawares upon his victim, and the mischief is effected before the wood-cutter or the villager is conscious of his danger.

[The]

following observations and experiments respecting rabies, by Dr. Hertwich, Professor at the Veterinary School at Berlin, are well worthy of attention.

  1. Out of fifty dogs that had been inoculated with virus taken from a rabid animal of the same species, fourteen only were infected.
  2. In the cases where inoculation had been practised without effect, no reason could be assigned why the disease should not have taken place. This consequently proves that the malady is similar to others of a contagious nature, and that there must exist a predisposition in the individual to receive the disease before it can occur. In one experiment, a mastiff dog, aged four years, was inoculated without exhibiting any symptoms of the malady, while seven others, who had been inoculated at the same time and place, soon became rabid. Several of these animals had been inoculated several times before any symptoms showed themselves, while in others, on the contrary, once was sufficient.
  3. It appears that in a state of doubtful rabies, one or two accidental or artificial inoculations are not sufficient to create a negative proof of its existence.
  4. This disease has never ben communicated to an individual from one infected by means of the perspirable matter; this, therefore, is a proof that the contagious part of the disease is not of a volatile nature.
  5. It does not only exist in the saliva and the mucus of the mouth, but likewise in the blood and the parenchyma of the salivary glands; but not in the pulpy substance of the nerves.
  6. The power of communicating infection is found to exist in all stages of the confirmed disease, even twenty-four hours after the decease of the rabid animal.
  7. The morbid virus, when administered internally, appears to be incapable of communicating this disease; inasmuch as of twenty dogs to whom was given a certain quantity, not one exhibited the least symptom of rabies.
  8. The application of the saliva upon recent wounds appears to have been as often succeeded by confirmed rabies as when the dog had been bitten by a rabid animal.
  9. It cannot now be doubled that the disease is produced by the wound itself, as was supposed by M. Girard of Lyons, not by the fright of the individual, according to the opinion of others, but only from the absorption of the morbid virus from its surface.
  10. Several experiments have proved to me the little reliance there is to be placed on the opinions of Baden and Capello, who believe that, in those dogs who become rabid after the bite of an animal previously attacked with this disease, the contagious properties of the saliva is not continued, but only exists in those primarily bitten.
  11. During the period of incubation of the virus there are no morbid, local, or general alterations of structure or function to be seen in the infected animal; neither are there any vesicles to be perceived on the inferior surface of the tongue, nor any previous symptoms which are found in other contagious diseases.
  12. [This] disease is generally at its height at the end of fifty days after either artificial or accidental inoculation; and the author has never known it to manifest itself at a later period.
  13. It is quite an erroneous idea to suppose that dogs in a state of health are enabled to distinguish, at first sight, a rabid animal, inasmuch as they never refuse their food when mixed with the secretions of those infected[3].

[The]

following singular trial respecting the death of a child by hydrophobia is worth quoting:

Jones v. Parry.