ENTAMOEBA GINGIVALIS 93 



same as the " Amoba buccalis " of Steinberg and the amoebae of Grassi : 

 and he also hinted that they might possibly be identical with " Amoba 

 dysenterica," which they were said greatly to resemble. The amoebae of 

 Kartulis were named " ? Amoeba kartitUsi" by Doflein (igoi), Eutanioeba 

 maxillaris by Kartulis himself (1906), and later Entamoeba kartnlisi by 

 Doflein (1911). I agree with Smith and Barrett =•= (1915) that these 

 names are probably synonyms of E. gingivalis. 



Prowazek (1904) redescribed this amoeba, and renamed it "Entamoeba 

 buccalis n. sp." — apparently in ignorance that it had already been 

 observed and previously named buccalis. He was impressed by its 

 resemblance to E. coli, and apparently considered it equally harmless. 



Brumpt (1910) amended the name of the organism to Amoeba 

 gingivalis, and later (19 13) to Entamoeba gingivalis Gros, which appears 

 to be the correct name of this species, — as Smith and Barrett (1915) have 

 already pointed out f in their detailed analysis of the nomenclature. It 

 is, moreover, the name now generally in use, though some recent workers 

 still call the organism E. buccalis. Craig (1916), indeed, has used the 

 curious combination " Endamoeba gingivalis {buccalis)," though in the 

 same work he also names the amoeba " Endamoeba gingivalis Gros 1849, 

 em. v. Prowazek 1904." Both these names are clearly incorrect : for the 

 first is not in accordance with the rules of nomenclature, and the 

 second attributes to Prow^azek a name which he never used. 



The amoebae described from an abscess in the malar region by Verdun 

 and Bruyant (1907, 1907 a), and named by them Amoeba pyogenes, appears 

 to me to have been E. gingivalis, though Smith and Barrett (19 15) regard 

 it as probably a distinct species. I also consider that Endamoeba confusa 

 Craig (1916) is probably synonymous with E. gingivalis. It is a name 

 proposed for an oral amoeba not yet properly described. From Craig's 

 statements it appears to be closely similar to E. gingivalis, though said to 

 be smaller. Its chief distinctive character seems to be "the liability 

 of confusing this species with the smaller examples of E. gingivalis.'' 

 At present there is no evidence to prove that such a confusion would be 

 unwarranted. The name " Endamoeba Gros " employed by Hecker 

 (1916) is evidently applied to E. gingivalis. I take it to be a term 

 formed on analogy with the peculiar names used in bacteriological 

 nomenclature. :;: 



The earlier workers made very few observations of any value upon 

 E. gingivalis : and among the more recent workers there are but few who 

 have supplied really accurate data from the zoological standpoint. 

 Originally the organism excited but little interest. Indeed, it received 

 no real notice until Smith and Barrett (1915) and Bass and Johns (1915) 

 first § advanced the hypothesis that E. gingivalis is the cause of pyorrhoea 

 alveolaris (Riggs' Disease) ; Bass and Johns (1915) maintaining the 



* These authors unfortunately give both the names incorrectly, writing " Endameba 

 kartulisi Doflein" and '■'■ )?iaxtlaris.'" 



t They use the generic names Ejidamoeba or Endameba, however, on grounds 

 of priority ; though they presumably regard them both as interchangeable with 

 Entamoeba. I do not follow Lynch (191 5) in using Gros's (1849) original spelling 

 of the specific name, which is clearly a misprint {^'' gcngivalis" {or gingivalis). 



X Such as " Bacillus Flexner," " B. Shiga," etc. 



§ Both these authors published preliminary papers in the preceding year (1914). 

 Bass and Johns (1915) give the priority in the "discovery" to Smith and Barrett. 



