28 HUMAN INTESTINAL PROTOZOA IN THE NEAR EAST 



it as of a vegetable nature. It was for this reason that the amoeba 

 was not noted in any of the natives in Hadra Prison in the 

 197 healthy men, nor in the 328 convalescents. The amoeba was 

 certainly present but was neglected by us when in the encysted state, 

 or was regarded as a small form of E. coli or Amoeba Umax when 

 free. In the other groups examined subsequently it was constantly 

 present, and attained its highest percentage in the case of the men 

 in Gabarri Prison. As will be explained below, the small amoeba 

 identified as A. Umax in the case of the London convalescents, was 

 in all probability E. nana. 



(3) Coccidium (Isospora). Infection with this coccidium was 

 only met with once in the case of an E. histolytica carrier who was 

 being controlled in hospital. The oocysts were first noted about a 

 week after the beginning of the observation. It is remarkable that 

 fifteen cases of this infection were met with in London out of 

 556 cases examined, while in Egypt only one was seen out of a 

 much larger number of examinations. It seems that coccidium 

 infections were fairly common in Egypt during the latter part of 

 1915 when they were being found in England, and this may be 

 explained by the fact that the men in both places had then come 

 recently from Gallipoli where the infection may have been acquired. 

 The scarcity during the first six months of 1916 in Egypt may be 

 due to the fact that the infection had in most cases died out. 

 There may, however, be some seasonal incidence of the infection. 

 As the figures in the tables are based on the single examination the 

 one case of coccidiosis does not appear, as it was only found at a 

 later examination. 



(4) Entamceba histolytica. One of the main objects of the 

 investigation we undertook in Alexandria was the determination of 

 the percentage of carriers of E. histolytica amongst healthy troops. 

 From what has already been stated and the figures shown in 

 Table IX, it will be seen that there is a high percentage (5'3) of 

 carriers amongst the healthy British troops in Egypt. The figure 

 would be higher if allowance were made for the error of the single 

 examination on which the figure 5'3 is based. The carriers were 

 no more numerous amongst men who had served in Gallipoli, as we 

 have already shown above. This fact would seem to indicate that 

 Gallipoli was not more heavily infected with E. histolytica than 



A Egypt, which has been known to be an endemic centre for amoebic 

 dysentery for upwards of forty years. 



The convalescents examined in London and Alexandria showed 

 a higher percentage of carriers than the healthy men, while the 



