150 PARASITES OF MAN 



seen the capsules before other English observers, including 

 Wormald, it was Hilton who first surmised their parasitic 

 character. As for the claims of Klencke and Tiedemann, they 

 are practically of no value, even if it be admitted that the 

 former may have at an early period seen something resembling 

 this nematode, and that the " stony concretions " encountered 

 by the latter were degenerated capsules. 



On no subject have I desired to write with more accuracy 

 and precision than on this, and lest the above remarks should 

 appear to be somewhat partial, I now purposely re-state the 

 facts as they have presented themselves to me during a full and 

 prolonged study of the entire literature of the subject. If it be 

 asked with whom rests the discovery of Trichina, the reply 

 must be framed with a due regard to precise issue at stake. 

 The first recognition of the capsules as parasitic products is 

 fairly claimed by Hilton ; the worm by Paget ; the zoological 

 allocation and nomenclature by Owen ; the udult worm by 

 Virchow ; the developmental phenomena by Leuckart ; the 

 rearing of the larvae by Herbst ; and to crown all, the clinical 

 importance of the parasite by Zenker. Due regard being had 

 to these relative claims, I think the following more extended 

 statement will be found to be true and just in all its bearings. 



In the year 1834 Sir James Paget, then a student, first 

 actually determined the existence of the nematode entozoon, 

 which was subsequently more completely described by Professor 

 Owen. The discoverer was assisted by the celebrated 

 botanist, Kobert Brown, who lent his microscope for the 

 purposes of examination. In the following year Professor 

 Owen first scientifically described and named the flesh-worm 

 (Trichina spiralis) in the published transactions of a learned 

 society. He first fully interpreted the true zoological position 

 of the parasite. Sir J. Paget' s colleague, Mr. Wormald, had 

 " more than once " previously noticed the characteristic specks 

 " in subjects dissected at St Bartholomew's Hospital." He 

 transmitted the individual specimens which enabled Owen to 

 draw up his valuable paper. It is clear, however, that Mr 

 Hilton was the first to suggest the parasitic and animal nature 

 of the specks observed in human muscle. As the " find " was 

 made in 1832, he anticipated Wormald in his observation of 

 the " gritty " particles in dissecting-room subjects, describing 

 the bodies as " probably depending upon the formation of very 

 small Cysticerci." Nevertheless, according to Dr Hodgkin, 



