136 THE AMOEBAE LIVING IN MAN 



organism at all. The " amoebae " were really cells from the body-cavity. 

 Their movements, which consisted chiefly in change of shape and the 

 emission of "pseudopodia," and their "contractile vacuoles" — which 

 contracted only once in a quarter of an hour — appear to me to supply 

 insufficient data for assuming that they must have been amoebae ; whilst 

 the " plasmogamy " and the " reproductive " phenomena (budding, 

 division, etc.) observed and figured are far too much like aggregations 

 of degenerate body-cells to be accepted as evidence of rhizopod affinities. 

 Without making a careful study of the cellular elements in ascitic fluid 

 I am not prepared to identify Schaudinn's '' organisms " more precisely. 

 But I find it impossible to regard " Leydenia" as an amoeba without 

 very much stronger evidence, and its identification with Chlamydophiys 

 I regard as a mere speculation. 



"Amoeba niinrai Ijima, 1898." — Shortly after the discovery of 

 " Leydenia," Miura discovered a similar " organism " in a Japanese 

 woman. It was described by Ijima (1898), who named it Amoeba miiirai. 

 According to him, it was present in the serous exudate from the pleural 

 and peritoneal cavities of the patient, who was diagnosed by Miura as a 

 case of "pienritis and peritonitis endotlieliomatosa." Two days before her 

 death the same " organisms " were also found in the bloody mucous 

 stools. Ijima noted the resemblance of "A. vtinrai" to "Leydenia," 

 and also that it was " discovered under almost identical circumstances " ; 

 but he regarded it as belonging to a different species. No movements, 

 save change of shape, were observed, and no contractile vacuoles; but 

 nuclei varying in number from one to three were present. Inspection 

 of the figures leaves no doubt in my mind that "Amoeba miiirai" is 

 closely similar to "Leydenia," and is to be interpreted in the same way : 

 that is to say, it is not an amoeba, or protozoon of any kind, but a 

 misinterpretation of cells from the pleural and peritoneal cavities. This 

 "organism," therefore, should be deleted from the list of amoebae living 

 in man. 



" Amoeba pnlmonalis Artault, 1898." — I have already mentioned — 

 when discussing £. ^n/^iVa/Zs — that Artault (1898) found an "amoeba" 

 in a lung cavity. He proposed to call it Amoeba pnlmonalis. It was 

 present in small numbers in the sputum, among leucocytes, etc., and 

 is said to have undergone changes in shape, though apparently it was not 

 motile. Beyond the statement that the " amoeba " showed "a nucleus 

 and a vacuole" very clearly, no account of the morphology was given. 

 It was not figured ; and the author states that it was " perhaps the same 

 as the Amoeba vulgaris" — an organism with which I am unacquainted. 

 There is nothing in Artault's description to indicate that he was dealing 

 with an amoeba ; and even if he was, there is no character given which 

 can enable its species to be determined. It seems highly probable, 

 indeed, that his "amoebae" were really cells. 



Brumpt (1910) states that he has also observed "A. pnlmonalis," 

 He gives figures of the " organism " which are not very convincing. In 

 his account I find no evidence that the things which he depicts are 

 really amoebae. They might equally well have been cells. 



It may be added that two different amoebae may really occur 

 occasionally in the sputum — E. gingivalis, from the mouth, and E. his- 

 tolytica, from a lung abscess or a liver abscess which has ruptured into 

 the lung. 



"Entamoeba uuditlans Castellani, 1905." — Castellani (1905), has 



