246 C. CLIFFORD DOBELL. 
was the form which I am about to describe. It is quite 
possible that he observed the amoeboid stage of Chlamydo- 
phrys,! which I shall describe later. Lieberkithn did not 
name the organism, and as far as | am aware no name was 
given to it until 1879, when Grassi proposed the name 
Amoeba ranarum. In the meantime, however, its existence 
had been recognised by Leuckart and others. Grassi’s form 
is perhaps the same as mine, though this is not certain as no 
really accurate description of the animal has yet been given. 
Doflein (14) retained Grassi’s name. I presume, moreover, 
that it is this form to which Hartmann (24) refers as Ent- 
amoeba rane. 
It was pointed out by Casagrandi and Barbagallo (54) that 
the parasitic amoebee should probably be separated generic- 
ally from the free-living Amceba. ‘They proposed the new 
genus Hntamceba, therefore, to contain the parasitic forms 
found in man and in the cockroach. ‘There can be small 
doubt that this is justifiable. And the proposal was adopted 
by Schaudinn (48) in his work on the amcoebe in man. 
Although the life-history of the amceba in frogs appears to 
differ considerably from that of other parasitic amcebe,? I 
think it best at present to place it in the genus Entameeba. 
Assuming, then, that this organism is the same as that 
described by Grassi, it follows that its correct name is 
Entamoeba ranarum Grassi. 
Lieberktthn stated (37) that the organism occurred fre- 
quently in the large intestine of its host, sometimes being 
present in considerable numbers. He noted that it contained 
a number of granules, one of which (? the nucleus) was often 
of specially large size. Ingestion of food and division, though 
constantly sought, were never observed. 
To this account Grassi (21) added the following facts. 
! This also applies to the amcebie described in frogs by other investi- 
gators—especially Grassi, whose description corresponds much more 
closely with Chlamydophrys than with Entameba. 
2 And though E. coli and HE. murisare very much alike, they appear 
to differ very greatly from E. blattz as regards life-history. 
