140 THE AMOEBAE LIVING IN MAN 



filled with "numerous granules" showing great activity caused by 

 " protoplasmic streaming." Its size is very variable, but is " estimated " 

 at " 30 /i and more." The nucleus is large and vesicular or kidney-shaped. 

 The "amoeba" forms bud-like " pseudopodia " very rapidly, but does 

 not undergo locomotion. The "cysts" are " large," "without distinctly 

 recognizable membrane." Their contents were not investigated, but 

 they are said to have been tightly packed with highly refractile masses. 

 It is said, finally, to resemble " Amoeba coli Loesch " and to differ from 

 "Amoeba histolytica Schaudinn" — which are, of course, two different 

 names for the same organism. 



There is thus every justification for removing this improperly named 

 and probably non-existent " amoeba " from among the amoebae of man 

 and the causes of dysentery. 



The Amoebae described front Htiuian Skin Lesions. — It has already been 

 noted that amoebae have been described from the skin. Carini (1912, 

 1912^) has recorded two cases in which a phagedaenic ulceration 

 developed in the tissues surrounding the wound made in operating 

 upon a liver abscess. He found numerous amoebae in the subcutaneous 

 tissues and in the exudate from the ulcers ; and he regarded them as 

 belonging to E. histolytica — apparently believing that they invaded the 

 skin secondarily from the pus draining from the liver abscess. Dagorn 

 and Heymann (191 2) have described a similar case, and a report upon 

 the amoebae found has been published by Gauducheau (1912^). Several 

 other similar cases are also on record. The first appears to be that of 

 Nasse (1892), who did not see the amoebae alive, and whose material 

 was admittedly badly fixed and prepared. 



It is, I think, still very doubtful, from the descriptions published, 

 whether the "amoebae" found in such phagedaenic lesions really were 

 E. histolytica. No proper account of them has yet been published, 

 and no protozoologist with an adequate systematic knowledge of the 

 amoebae appears to have studied any of these cases. Although Carini 

 merely says* that his amoebae had affinities with *^ Amoeba tetragena," he 

 appears to assume their identity with this species (i.e., Entamoeba histo- 

 lytica). He has given no proper description of them. Gauducheau 

 (1912) gives an account of his "amoebae" which leads one to doubt 

 whether they were amoebae at all. He did not attempt to identify them, 

 because he holds — if I understand him correctly — that it is not possible 

 to distinguish different species of amoebae from one another. It thus 

 seems clear that further investigations by a competent protozoologist 

 are necessary ; and until more information is available, it seems to me 

 unprofitable to discuss the nature of these " amoebae." 



In the same category may be placed the "amoebae" found by J. L. 

 Maxwell (1912) is cases of " fistulous disease of the buttocks " observed 

 in Formosa. Although the author states it as his opinion that the pus 

 from the fistulous tracks contained " amoebae, conforming I believe to 

 the type of entamoeba histolytica" and would regard these as the cause 

 of the condition, there seems at present to be no evidence of any weight 

 in support of such an interpretation. The exact systematic position of 



* " Les amibes piesentent des caract^res les rapprochant de \ Amoeba tetragena 

 (Carini, 1912). 



