ANIMAL PAEASITES. 17 



iv, p. 152, with a plate), speaks, in the year 1685, of the Vermes 

 vesicular es sea hydatidodes from the peritoneum of the goat (Cys- 

 ticercus tenuicollis) in 1688 (1. c., decur. ii, ann. vii, p. 58), of 

 the animal nature of the Cysticercus of the pig, as two years 

 afterwards Wepfer did that of the Cysticercus fasciolaris. It is 

 true that the head, the suckers, and the circlet of hooks were 

 unknown to Hartmann, but he very distinctly saw the movements 

 of the worms in warm water, regarded the caudal vesicle as 

 " corpus utriculare," the imperfectly exserted neck as an append- 

 age (proboscis), and called the bands proceeding from the neck 

 in the interior of the vesicle the " frustulum." 



In 1688, when he discovered the Cysticercus fasciolaris, 

 Wepfer at the same time recognised its similarity with the tape- 

 worms (latis lumbricis intestinorum), and he was the first author 

 who did this. Even in 1675, Wepfer had also discovered the 

 hydatids in the brain of vertiginous sheep (' De apoplexia/ p. 56), 

 without, however, recognising their animal nature, which seems 

 to have been first done by Leske. 



These opinions as to the animal nature of cystic worms re- 

 mained unknown to authors, as, for instance, Peyer and Brunner 

 in 1689 and 1694 (< Misc. Cur./ dec. ii and iii), and for this 

 reason, Tyson, who in 1691 again discovered the animal nature 

 of the Cysticercus tenuicollis (' Phil. Trans./ No. 193, p. 506, and 

 ' Act. erud./ Lips., 1692, p. 435), is often regarded as the original 

 discoverer of this fact. Tyson considered the caudal vesicle as the 

 stomach, to which the nourishment flowed from the mouth through 

 the joints, but he added nothing at all to Hartmann's statements, 

 except perhaps the unfortunate name of "Lumbricus hydropicus/' 

 instead of Hartmann's "Vermis vesicularis = hydatidodes/' or 

 in English, " cystic worm." Besides Tyson, Malpighi (1694) is 

 also often mentioned as the discoverer of the animal nature of 

 the cystic worms, but certainly unjustly ; his merit consists in 

 having admirably described the Cysticercus of the pig (' Oper. 

 posth./ edit. Londin., 1698), and spoken of the head of the 

 cystic worms ; and he also speaks of a prohibition of the flesh of 

 the " Sues verminosi = Lazaroli." 



Up to the sixtieth year of the eighteenth century this theory 

 stood still, or even retrograded ; Ruysch, Frysch, Ouymos, with 

 Doeveren, and Daubenton, with Buffon, like Wepfer, only regarded 

 the Cysticercus fasciolaris as an encysted tape- worm. 



In 1760, Pallas (' Dissert, inaug. de infest, vivent. intra viven- 



