SARCODINA 31 



gave support on the grounds of their own observations, encountered opposition. Thus 

 it was established that amoebae were not found in patients in every place where 

 dysentery was endemic, or else they were much rarer than was expected. Further 

 amoebae were present in the most varied kinds of intestinal diseases, both of infective 

 and non -infective characters. Also they were present in quite healthy persons. 



Moreover, for various reasons, infection experiments on animals failed to supply 

 proof, and finally a bacterium was discovered (Shiga, 1898) to be the excitant of one 

 form of dysentery. Agglutination attested the specific part played by this organism, 

 as it was produced by the blood serum of a person suffering from or recovered from 

 dysentery, but not by the serum of one who was uninfected. Bacillary dysentery 

 consequently was a distinct entity. The final step to be taken was to decide whether 

 there was a specific amoebic enteritis (amoebic dysentery or amcebiasis, according to 

 Musgrave). 



FlG. 2. Encysted intestinal amoebae showing nuclear multiplication. 

 (After B. Grassi.) 



This question should decidedly be regarded from the positive point of view. 

 It is intimately connected with another, namely, whether there are not several species 

 of intestinal amoebae. The possibility of this had already been recognized. In 

 addition to the Amoeba coli Losch, R. Blanchard distinguished yet another, Amceba 

 intestinalis, and designated thereby the large amoebae described in the first com- 

 munication made by Kartulis ; later on he stated the distinction between the species. 

 Councilman and Lafleur * (1891) considered the amoeba of dysentery to \>t Amceba coli 

 Losch and so re-named the species Amoeba dysenteric^. Kruse and Pasquale (1893) 

 employed the same nomenclature, but retained the old name Amceba coli Losch for 

 the non-infectious species. Quincke and Roos (1893) set forth three species: a 

 smaller species (25 /*) finely granular, pathogenic for men and cats (Amceba coli 

 Losch) ; a larger species (40 ^) coarsely granular, pathogenic for men but not for 

 cats {A. coli mitis) ; and a similar species non-pathogenic either 'for man or cat 

 (A.intestinivulgaris}. Celli and Fiocca (1894-6) went still further, they distinguished : 



(1) Amceba lobosa variety guttula (=A.guttula Duj), variety oblonga (=A. oblonga 

 Schm.) and variety coli (= A. coli Losch). 



(2) Amoeba spinosa n. sp. occurring in the vagina as well as in the intestine of 

 human patients suffering from diarrhoea and dysentery. 



(3) Amceba diaphana n. sp. found in the human intestine in cases of dysentery. 



(4) Amoeba vermicularis Weisse, present in the vagina and in dysentery ; and 



(5) Amceba reticularis n. sp. in dysentery. 



Shiga distinguished two species; a larger pathogenic species with a somewhat 

 active movement, and a small harmless species with a somewhat sluggish movement. 

 Bowman mentions two varieties, Strong and Musgrave (1900) two species the patho- 

 genic Amceba dysenteries and the non-pathogenic Amceba coli ; Jager (1902) and 

 Jurgens (1902) mention at least two species. In the following year (1903) a work by 

 Schaudinn was published which marked a real advance. This, in conjunction with 

 the establishing of a special genus (Endamceba or Entamceba] for human intestinal 

 amoebae first by Leidy 2 and then by Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 3 for the time cleared 

 up the confused nomenclature, the old name Amceba coli being retained for the 



1 " Amcebic Dysentery," Johns Hopkins Hosp. Repts.^ ii, pp. 395-548, 7 plates. 

 - "On Amceba blattae" Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia (1879), xxxi, p. 204. 

 3 " Entamceba hominis s. Amoeba coli (Losch). Annali d" 1 Igiene speriment. (1897), vii, 

 p. 103. See also further remarks on p. 34. 



