16, 6 Haughwout et al.: Protozoal Dysentery 643 
themselves unprotected in a most unfavorable environment for 
locomotion and the procuring of food suited to them. If the 
feces are hard and lacking in moisture, the greater number 
of the organisms probably perish before reaching the anus. 
On the other hand, if the feces are soft or fluid, the parasites 
live long enough to be seen by the microscopist, if he examines 
the stool with reasonable promptness. So far, there seems to me 
no good evidence that Balantidium coli derives any nourishment 
from the feeces—indeed, the indications are that nothing what- 
ever is taken in through the cytostome after the balantidia leave 
the tissues. This, of course, lends support to the supposition 
that this species of Balantidiwm is an obligatory tissue parasite 
in man. 
However, when something happens to bring about the ex- 
pulsion, in large numbers, of the parasites from the submucous 
tissues, a tremendous stress is placed upon the tissues. The 
parasites appear to make their way down between the glands 
of Lieberkuhn and the supporting stroma. When they do this 
in small numbers, the separation of the tissue elements probably 
closes up rather promptly, and the relatively few bacteria en- 
doned in the past. The editorial indecision that led to the designation of 
the generic name by three separate spellings can only be regretted. All 
this necessitated the attachment of errata slips to each reprint of the 
article that was sent out. 
I know of no ameeba bearing the specific name “dysenterica,” and search 
of the literature has so far failed to reveal one to me. Therefore, I cer- 
tainly do not care, in view of the present state of our knowledge of the 
parasitic amebz in man, to stand sponsor for any further additions to 
the already confusing synonomy of Entameba histolytica. Doubtless the 
person who made this alteration in our manuscript had heard of the name 
Endameba dysenteriz as employed by Pestana after Councilman and La- 
fleur, and, with the object, perhaps, of making the name run more trip- 
pingly off the tongue of the busy practitioner, changed it to “dysenterica.” 
Manifestly, economy of space was gained by changing entamebe to “enda- 
mebas” and ameba to “ameba,” although the latter term may be collo- 
quially used as a group name with more or less propriety. 
I am one of those who are in entire accord with Prof. Clifford Dobell 
regarding the inconsistency and inadvisability of substituting the specific 
name dysenteriz for Schaudinn’s ill-chosen, but nevertheless time-honored, 
name histolytica as the specific name for the dysentery ameba. In view of 
this it is, to say the least, somewhat disconcerting unwittingly to be made 
to appear as contradicting the teaching and writing of years. I cannot 
regard it as a mitigating circumstance that the proof of this paper was 
read in the United States by a friend who, though a scientific man, is not 
a zodlogist, and who could not be expected to cross swords with the editor 
on a question of nomenclature. 
