"5 



IX. 



THE AMOEBAE FOUND IN HUMAN URINE, IN DOGS, 

 AND IN MONKEYS. 



I HAVE already mentioned that there are several problems connected 

 with the amoebae which have been described from human urine, and 

 also with those which have been found in certain animals other than 

 man — especially dogs and monkeys. It is not possible to deal thoroughly 

 with several problems in the nomenclature of the amoebae of man with- 

 out taking these organisms into account ; and I shall therefore say 

 something about all of them in this section, and endeavour to clear up 

 some of the difficulties which they ofiter at present. 



I shall deal with the amoebae from urine, from dogs, and from 

 monkeys, separately and in this order. 



The Amoebae found in Human Urine, 



There are now over a dozen records of amoebae discovered in the 

 urine or urinogenital organs of human beings, and a condition of "urinary 

 amoebiasis" is recognized by some clinicians. Since the amoebae con- 

 cerned are supposed by some workers to be E. histolytica, and since they 

 have received various names, it has already been necessary to notice 

 them when dealing with the nomenclature of this species. 



Amoebae appear to have been first recorded in the urine by Baelz 

 (1883), who found them in a young Japanese woman with " tuberculosis 

 of the urinogenital apparatus and lungs." She entered hospital the day 

 before her death. Her urine, removed by catheter, was bloody and 

 contained much pus and necrotic tissue; and, in addition, Baelz found 

 enormous numbers of actively motile amoebae measuring 50 fi in 

 diameter, and, except for their rather larger size, " in every way " like 

 Losch's " Amoeba coli." According to Baelz, " they consist of a 

 granular body-substance with a large vesicular nucleus " : and he says 

 they were present in the bladder and vagina, and he believed that they had 

 wandered from the latter into the former. He does not record that they 

 contained ingested red corpuscles, and apparently he did not examine the 

 stools. No post mortem examination was made. He remarks that " if 

 the parasite, as is probable, represents a new species, then it may be 

 given the name Amoeba urogenitalis." Blanchard (1885), in recording 

 this case, names the organism "Amoeba vaginalis Baelz, 1883" — which 

 is incorrect, and presumably a lapsus calami. 



Jiirgens (1892) has described mucous cysts "filled with amoebae" 

 which he found in the bladder of an old woman — a case of chronic 

 cystitis and endometritis. The "amoebae " are not properly described : 

 but it is stated that they put out pseudopodia when warmed, and that 

 some of them had no nuclei. Their resemblance to cells was noted, and 



