IIIST011Y OF CYSTICERCUS CELLULOSE. 511 



ancient and modern investigators have wished to establish as distinct 

 species. x 



Soon after the discovery of the human bladder- worm by Werner 2 

 its identity with the Cysticercus cellulusce was recognised by Fischer, 

 and was established by his successors, among whom I would especially 

 mention Stein buch. Werner is not, however, to be regarded as the 

 discoverer of the bladder-worm of the pig, for the occurrence of 

 bladder-worms in the muscles of man had been detected long before. 

 But they were then in nowise regarded as animals either in pig or 

 man, but as glandular tumours (" glandia "), although their animal 

 nature, at least in the case of those from the pig, had been 

 recognised since the end of the seventeenth century by Hartmann 3 

 and Malpighi 4 independently of one another. Hartmann further 

 expresses the probability that the other so-called " glandular tumours " 

 also resulted from intestinal worms. 5 



The fact that the bladder- worms were still considered as tumours 

 and degenerated glands, proves only how difficult it is to displace old- 

 established opinions. The idea was, indeed, an old one, for we find it 



1 Besides Koberl^, to whose opinion we shall return, Brera and Cloquet especially 

 have tried to break up the Cysticercus celluloses of man into several species. (" Compendio 

 di elmintographia humana," 180, p. 24, and " Diet, des sci. med.," t. xxii., p. 165.) 



2 Werner, " Vermium in test, brevis expositionis continuatio tertia," p. 77 : Lipsise, 

 1788. For the first report on bladder- worms in man, see Op. cit., contin. sec., Lipsiae, 1880. 



3 " Miscell. curiosa seu Ephem., Acad. nat. curios.," Dec. ii. Ann. vii. 1688, p. 58. 

 A few years previously (1685) Hartmann also recognised Cysticercus tenuicoUis as a living 

 parasite, and thus for the first time detected the true nature of " hydatids." 



4 "Opera postuma," p. 84, edit. London, 1698. " In suibus verniinosis, qui 

 Lazaroli dicuntur, multiplices stajbulantur vermes, unde horum animalium carnes publico 

 edicto prohibentur. Occurrunt autem copiosi intra fibras musculosas natium, obvia 

 natuque oblonga vesicula folliculus diaphano humore confertus, in quo natat globosum 

 corpus candidum, quod disrupto fojliculo leviter compressum eructat vermem, qui foras 

 exeritur et videtur aemulari cornua exmissilia cochlearum, ejus enim annuli intra se reflexa 

 conduntur et ita globatur animal. Jn apice attollitur capitulum et globati vermem ad 

 extremum folliculi umbilicale quasi yas perducitur." Malpighi had thus even an intimate 

 acquaintance with the head-process, more accurate at least than Hartmann, whose 

 description (loc. cit.) runs as follows : "In corde suis glandia complurima, ultra viginti, 

 in parenchymate utriusque ventriculi intimiori observavi : singulos scrobiculos singulse 

 tunicae albae oppleverant ; tunicis incisjs peculiaris tenuis membranae folliculus eximi 

 poterat, qui praeter limpidum humorem funiculum candicantem fill albi instar convolutum 

 complectabatur, ipsissimum vermiculum." Though Hartmann's description is less intimate 

 than Malpighi's, the right of priority rests with the former. 



" Glandia, aut quocunque nomine his affines veniant pustulae, nidos esse vermiculorum 

 mihi fit verosimile " (loc. cit.). Kiichenineister asserts (" Parasiten," second edition, p. 56), 

 that in this passage, first rescued from forgetfulriess by me, I have " unfortunately " 

 falsely translated "nidos vermiculorum "as " worm nests," while it means nothing more 

 than the place occupied by the worms. I will not discuss which translation is the more 

 correct, but will only note that I have never translated this passage at all (see " Blasen- 

 bandwiirmer," p. 8). Kuchenmeister has often been " unfortunate " when he criticises my 

 assertions as " erroneous." 



