26 THE AMOEBAE LIVING IN MAN 



nomenclature of this organism briefly elsewhere (Dobell, 1918), and will 

 begin by recapitulating what I there said. 



The dysentery amoeba was first described by Losch (1875), who named 

 it " Amoeba coli." Consequently, if his name is accepted, and the 

 parasite is placed in the genus Entamoeba, its correct name — according 

 to the rule of priority — is Entamoeba coli Losch. This name, however, 

 was most unfortunately assigned to the large harmless amoeba of the 

 human colon by Schaudinn (1903), in his revision of these forms : and 

 since then it has been used with no other signification. To transfer 

 this name now can only lead to the direst confusion. So far as I am 

 aware only one writer has hitherto had the temerity to advocate such a 

 course — Aragao (1917, 1917 a), who considers that we should henceforth 

 call the dysentery amoeba E. coli, notwithstanding the confusion it will 

 create, in order to conform to the law of priority. Many other workers* 

 now call the dysentery amoeba E. dysenteriaef, on the grounds that this 

 specific name was given to it by Councilman and Lafleur in 1891, and 

 therefore has priority over histolytica Schaudinn (1903). This course 

 was first recommended by Craig (1905), who abandoned it later when 

 Stiles (1905) showed that it was not justifiable. Stiles's revision of 

 *' Amoeba coli " is, however, no longer acceptable, because he did not 

 know all the facts of the case.^ He showed, nevertheless, that dysen- 

 teriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891, is not available as a name for the 

 dysentery amoeba — as I have also pointed out (191 8) in ignorance 

 that Stiles had already done so. Councilman and Lafleur proposed to 

 call Losch's "Amoeba coli" by the new name "amoeba dysenteriae " 

 solely because they considered the former inappropriate. § Their name 

 is therefore a synonym of " Amoeba coli " Losch, if these names are con- 

 sidered to have any standing. For my own part I consider "amoeba 

 dysenteriae" to be unquestionably synonymous with "Amoeba coli" 

 Losch ; but I also regard it as having no systematic status whatever. 

 It was written in ordinary type, without a capital letter for the generic 

 name ; and, moreover, as the context shows, it was proposed as a 

 descriptive term and not as a binominal Linnaean name. On no grounds, 

 apparently, can E. dysenteriae be justified as the name of the dysentery 

 amoeba. 



The singular point in the nomenclature of those who call the 

 dysentery amoeba E. dysenteriae, is that they all, with fev/ exceptions, 

 ^ive the name E. coli to the species to which Schaudinn gave it.|| This 

 curious inconsistency I have already pointed out (1918). It appears 



* For example Brumpt (1913), Mathis and Mercier (1916), and many other workers 

 in France and America. 



t Kartulis (1893) ^"d numerous medical writers have used the term " Amoeba 

 •dysenterica " — presumably in mistake for '■'' dysenlertae.'" 



% Stiles (1905) concluded that if there is only one amoeba in man, its proper namr; 

 is E. coli Losch ; but if there are two — a pathogenic and a non-pathogenic — then their 

 names are respectively E. histolytica and E. coli, as determined by Schaudinn. 



§ " We have called the organism, which was first described by Losch under the 

 ■narne of amoeba coli, the 'amoeba dysenteriae.' The name given to it by Losch is not 

 distinctive . . etc." Councilman and Lafleur (1891), p. 405. 



II Pestana (1917) is the only exception I can recall. He names the dysentery 

 amoeba E. dysenteriae and the non-pathogenic species E, honiinis — which abolishes 

 the name coli altogether, though with no apparent justification. 



