ENTAMOEBA COLI 



77 



reason whatsoever — as contrary to the spirit, though probably conform- 

 able to the letter, of the Laws of Zoological Nomenclature. Accordingl}^, 

 I accept Schaudinn's mistake and its consequences. I would point out, 

 however, that the specific name coli was first given to the organism in 

 question by Grassi in 1879 — not by Losch : and that the generic name 

 Entamoeba was introduced, and combined with this specific name, by 

 Casagrandi and Barbagallo in 1895. Consequently, if this amoeba con- 

 tinues to be known in future as Entamoeba coli, then its full title should 

 be Entamoeba coli (Grassi, 1879) Casagrandi et Barbagallo, 1895 ; and not 

 " Entamoeba coli Losch emend, Schaudinn " — as Schaudinn would have 

 it. It was not permissible to Schaudinn to amend Losch's name so as 

 to make it designate a different organism altogether : and if the name 

 Entamoeba coli is retained in Schaudinn's sense, then the authorities 

 cited for it should be the workers who first used it in this sense — 

 namely, Casagrandi and Barbagallo, and not Losch and Schaudinn. 



The chief other synonyms of this organism are given in the hst 

 which heads this section. It only remains to add {\\7ii Entamoeba coli is 

 probably the amoeba that Schuberg (1893) found in non-dysenteric 

 people; the ''Amoeba coli" of many earlier authors, and some later 

 workers — e.g., Massiutin (1889, Cases 2—5), Brumpt (1910) ; the 

 "Amoeba I" of McCarrison (1909) — as he himself surmised; and pre- 

 sumably the organism referred to as "Entamoeba Loeschi " by Lesage 

 (1908). To this species also is referable the greater part of the ''Ent- 

 amoeba coli communis" of Knowles and Cole (1917), as Brug (1917^) 

 and Malins Smith (1918) have already pointed out. The 8-nucleate cyst 

 of " E. hartmanni" described and figured by Prowazek (1912 a), the same 

 author's " E. williamsi" (Prowazek, 1911), and the larger cysts of 

 " E. brasiliensis" described by Aragao (1912, 1914), also all belong, in all 

 probability, to this species. On the other hand, the " Entamoeba coli " 

 of Werner (191 2) probably comprises not only this species but also 

 E. histolytica, E. nana, and /. biitschlii. Hartmann (1913, et alibi) con- 

 siders that Entamoeba minuta Elmassian (1909) is a synonym of £. coli 

 — which is obviously incorrect, as everybody who reads Elmassian's 

 paper with any care must admit. Whether any of the organisms (and 

 cells?) called " E. nipponica" by Koidzumi (1909) were E. coli I am 

 unable to determine with certainty. The E. coli of Akashi (1913) was 

 chiefly this species, but apparently included E. nana as well. Brumpt 

 (1913) — without stating his reasons — gives as synonyms of £. co/f not only 

 E. hartmanni, E. williamsi, E. minuta, E. nipponica, and E. brasiliensis, 

 but also E. biitschlii Prowazek (i9i2<:/), E. polecki Prowazek (1912), and 

 the numerous " species " of amoebae cultivated from human stools by 

 Celli and Fiocca (iSg:[a). There is clearly no justification for the inclu- 

 sion of these free-living forms, Fantham (191 1) would include the 

 free-living forms " Entamoeba tropicalis " Lesage (1908) and " E. hominis " 

 Walker (1908) in Entamoeba coli — with which they have no connexion : 

 and Calkins (1912) would include "Amoeba lobospinosa" Craig (1912), 

 another free-living form. Craig (1917) even goes so far as to say that 

 "£. tropicalis Le Sage" is certainly E. coli, though there is nothing in 

 the original work of Lesage (1908) to substantiate this statement. From 

 his description it was probably a mixture of free-living amoebae. 



Whether any of the Entamoebae of monkeys are really identical with 

 E. coli it is still impossible to determine (see p. 131), but the close similarity 

 of E. legeri Mathis (191 3) and the probably identical forms observed by 



