Notes on Zootic Cellulitis. 
Reprint from the Albany Medical Annals, November, 1889. 
ALBANY, N. Y. : 
Burdick & Taylor, Printers, 
481 Broadway. Notes on Zootic Cellulitis, 
or " Pink-Eye." 
Reprint from the Albany Medical Annals, November, 1889. NOTES ON ZOOTIC CELLULITIS, 
OR 
"PINK-EYE." 
By C. M. CULVER, M.A., M.D., Albany, N. Y, 
The Albany Medical Annals, in its issue of July, 1889, 
told something of what I then thought of the use of the term 
" Pink Eye." It has never afforded me much gratification 
to discuss this matter privately or publicly ; it seems to in- 
volve too much of what Mr. Carter* calls the "personal 
element," and have too little of the scientific value which I 
should prefer to have characterize my published writing. 
But there are two ways in which the discussion may possess 
some utility. In the first place, some men have used the 
name because of its catchiness, and because it made them 
appear, to them with whom the name was a novelty, as 
enterprising, penetrating discoverers. I regard it as worth 
some pains to let charlatans know that not everybody is de- 
ceived by their calembours. Again, a colleague who has my 
cordial esteem, and who is perfectly " regular," told me, in 
September, that he had often called eye-troubles " pink-eye," 
in a jocular way, not knowing that the term had been abused, 
not meaning to call the victims of the ocular disorder either 
horses or asses, and not supposing it could be construed as 
a reflection on his colleagues. I did not get the impression 
that this gentleman had used the term in real diagnosis. 
Perhaps such gentlemen may be induced, by what has been 
published about "pink-eye," not to joke about the term ; it 
appears to me that it would be advantageous if nobody 
would use the term as applied to any human disorder. 
Robertson,j- an authority in equine medicine, writes: 
" One manifestation of the catarrhal type of influenza-occa- 
* Carter, American Journal of Ophthalmoly, Jan. 1889, page ig, line 33. 
+ Robertson, Practice of Equine Medicine, London, page 56. 4 
sionally prevalent in certain seasons and in particular locali- 
ties-has been, during late years, so distinctly marked and 
possessed of leading features so striking, notably the color 
of the conjunctival membrane, that it has by many been 
regarded and spoken of as a distinct and separate affection, 
under the name of pink-eye, or epizootic cellulitis. This, 
however, is probably better regarded as merely a modifica- 
tion of the simplest form of fever we are now examining 
than as an affection differing essentially from it." 
This is under the heading " Influenza." The same author 
adds: "The conjunctiva is of a clear pink color, hence the 
name pink eye. 
Dr. Edward Moore, an Albany authority, a member of the 
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, has told me that 
" pink-eye " is not even a distinct horse disease ; that it dif- 
fers from constitutional ophthalmia slightly, in appearance, 
greatly in reality, they being two affections, the former being 
only a symptom of influenza, and the latter a disease by 
itself; that " pink-eye " is not a human complaint, and not 
even a well-defined lower-animal disorder, but is simply a 
form of epizootic influenza. 
Dr. Moore has since written to me : " Equine influenza 
assumes various types at different times, sometimes as a 
sporadic and at others as an epizootic disease. It is a febrile 
disease attended with great prostration of strength and with 
inflammation of some or all of the mucous membranes. In 
1872 and 1873 the widespread horse sickness of America, 
commonly known as 'the epizootic,' was due to influenza 
of the catarrhal type, while the more recent outbreaks 
have been characterized largely by inflammation of the con- 
junctival membranes, and hence known in vulgar parlance as 
' pink-eye.' " 
Our famous collaborator, Mr. R. Brudenell Carter, of Lon- 
don, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, has written 
to me, in a letter dated July 8, 1889 : " In reply to your in- 
quiry of the 19th of June, all I can say is that I have seen, 
within the last year or two, advertisements of some proprie- 
tary preparation as a remedy for ' pink-eye ' in the horse; 
$ Note that the author thus quoted is discussing a horse-disease. 5 
but I have never, to my knowledge, seen a case of this 
' pink-eye,' and I do not in the least know what is meant by 
it. In al] probability the name is applied by farmers, grooms 
and common people to several different afferent affections. 
" With regard to the human subject, I have neither seen 
nor heard of any unusual form or unusual prevalence of con- 
junctivitis, either in hospital or in private practice; and, 
before replying to your inquiry, I have asked some of my 
colleagues, with the result of hearing that their experience 
has been the same as my own. The only information I can 
send is, therefore, that I have nothing to say." 
In a letter dated September 26, '89, Dr. Charles A. Oliver, 
of Philadelphia, has written to me : " The reprint of ' Pink- 
Eye ' has just reached me. Your question is very practical 
and to the point, and I am sincerely glad that you have 
taken the occasion to object to a meaningless vulgarism." 
In a letter dated September 30, '89, Dr. Lewis H. Taylor, 
of Wilkesbarre, Penn., has written to me: "I have never 
seen any thing that I have diagnosed ' Pink-Eye.' " 
In a letter dated October 23, '89, Dr. G. E. de Schweinitz, 
of Philadelphia, has written to me: "Pink-eye is a stupid 
name. I quite agree with you. It is curious how much it is 
used at the present time." 
Dr. J. E. Weeks, formerly Resident Assistant Surgeon to 
the Ophthalmic and Aural Institute, of New York, has sent 
me a reprint of his valuable article on " The Pathogenic 
Microbe of 'Acute Catarrhal Conjunctivitis.'" On the 
cover of my copy, when it reached me, was, in manuscript, 
" Pink-Eye." In the article itself is plainly shown that the 
title of the paper gives the proper name of what has been 
miscalled "pink-eye." 
Since I commenced investigating this pseudonymous dis- 
order a pupil in the popular school alluded to in my former 
article on the sobriquet "Pink-Eye" called on me, having a 
marked case of acute catarrhal conjunctivitis. From the 
subjective history I knew that we were about to deal with a 
case of the formidable "pink-eye," concerning which I had 
heard so much. But nothing hinted that this case was part 
of an epidemic. The case in question was a somewhat se- 6 
vere one, requiring that the spasm of the contractor pupztlce 
muscle; which is often one of the symptoms of acute ca- 
tarrhal conjunctivitis, should be combated by the use of a 
mydriatic; but the conjunctivitis yielded to just such treat- 
ment as I have applied hundreds of times in similar cases, 
and I did not notice, during the time of its existence, any 
systemic weakness or any thing at all equine about the 
patient. 
As an example of the catchiness of the name, I may add 
that she has since been quasi reproachful because I had not 
cited the case in the previous discussion, since I had told 
her, at the outset, that hers was a typical case of the so- 
called " pink-eye " that had been alleged to have invaded 
the school she attended. 
The present writer hopes that this article may be a com- 
plement, rather than a supplement. 
As applied to any human malady, "Pink-Eye" is what 
Dr. Oliver calls it, a " meaningless vulgarism."