390 BIOLOGY OF THE PROTOZOA 



ulcers (Koch) showed ameboid bodies but, according to Dobell, 

 while he evidently regarded these as amebae his observations were 

 not sufficiently definite to justify positive conclusions. The work of 

 Kartulis was more convincing and his evidence, including observa- 

 tions on some 150 cases of intestinal ulcer (1886) with the discovery 

 of amebae in all, together with amebae in liver abscesses, and 

 later (1904) of amebae in abscesses of the brain, went far to estab- 

 lish, clinically, the etiological connection between "Amoeba coli" 

 and dysentery. 



What is probably the most thorough of the clinical works of this 

 period was the study of Councilman and Lafleur (1S91) of the 

 pathology of amebic dysentery and amebic abscess of the liver. 

 The possibility of two types of Amoeba coli in the human intes- 

 tine, one pathogenic, the other harmless, while evident now in the 

 conflicting observations of Grassi and Kartulis, does not seem to 

 have been considered by the earlier workers. It was fully considered, 

 however, by Councilman and Lafleur, who not only suggested the 

 possibility, from the evidence of their work, but went so far as to 

 name the innocuous form Amoeba coli, while to the pathogenic 

 form, capable of invading tissues and of causing liver abscesses, 

 they gave the new name Amoeba dysenteriae. This classical work 

 on the pathology of dysentery has received but scant attention from 

 later workers, particularly the more influential European parasitolo- 

 gists. There is absolutely no doubt that Councilman and Lafleur 

 recognized, gave adequate descriptions of, and named the cause of 

 amebic dysentery, which today is generally known as E. histolytica. 

 It is difficult to see any adequate reason why the specific name 

 dysenteriae should have been ignored save that histolytica is more 

 euphoneous and more descriptive of the havoc made by the ameba. 

 The reasons given by Dobell (1919) seem trivial and unworthy of 

 that astute critic, viz.: that Councilman and Lafleur in spelling 

 failed to capitalize the generic name Ameba and failed to italicize 

 the full name as a zoologist would have done. Dobell ignores the 

 ending iae which alone sets it apart from an ordinary descriptive 

 term. Again Dobell says (Ibid., p. 28): "I regard 'Amoeba dysen- 

 teriae,' Councilman and Lafleur, as ruled out because it is a syn- 

 onym of ' .1 moeba coli,' Losch." He accepts E. histolytica, however, 

 so this ruling does not seem to be forceful enough to set aside 

 Schaudinn's term which is equally well a synonym of A. coli, Losch. 

 When the subtleties of the legal profession are employed for scien- 

 tific ends and a matter settled on a post hoc technicality which 

 may be applied or not according to the whim of the individual, we 

 are rather close to unfair dealing. It may be too late to remedy the 

 injustice, for the name Endamoeba (or Entamoeba) histolytica is now 

 in general use, but it will never have a clear title. It is gratifying 

 to note that Chatton and Kofoid retain the name E. dysenteriae. 



