PART III.] Question of Identity of Australian and Indian Helminths. 627 



termed Gfaiv-craw, on the west coast of Africa, may prove to have been the offspring 

 of some such helminth. 



Again, the minute, thread-like nematoid described in America by Leidy, five 

 inches in length and gV inch in greatest breadth, is not to be overlooked. It was 

 obtained from the mouth of a child, and derives its name — Filaria hominis-oris *— 

 from this circumstance. 



All these circumstances point to the necessity of exercising considerable caution 

 in arriving at any decision as to the precise relation of any of these as yet obscure 

 parasites. 



With regard to the helminths discovered by Dr. Bancroft in Australia, I am not 

 in a position to offer an opinion. It has not yet been shown that they are blood- 

 worms in the ordinary sense of the term, nor is it known that the individual from 

 whom they were obtained harboured embryo-hsematozoa. It is further to be remarked 

 that the affections under which the persons laboured from which they were derived 

 were not characteristic of the diseases with which these hsematozoa have hitherto 

 been known to be associated ; indeed, it would appear that one of the principal morbid 

 conditions with which they are associated in this country [India] — naevoid elephantiasis — 

 is unknown in Australia. It may also be noteworthy that no male worm was found 

 among the specimens. 



Dr. Cobbold is, however, of opinion that they are identical, and it would be 

 superfluous to say that the opinion of one who has devoted so many years to the 

 study of helminths is entitled to consideration. This observer has lately (The Lancet, 

 July 13, 1878) given a summary of the bibliography, etc., of these questions, in which 

 I observe a slight error. It is with reference to the mature nematoid helminths found 

 in Australia. These, Dr. Cobbold states, were "first discovered by Dr. Bancroft and 

 first described by myself." It seems to me, however, that not only did Dr. Bancroft 

 discover the parasite, but also furnished the first account of them which appeared. It 

 is possible that the description supplied by Dr. Bancroft, which is quoted on a previous 

 page, is not considered sufficiently precise to be accepted as such, from a naturalist's 

 point of view. Allowing this, if, as Dr. Cobbold maintains, the Australian and Indian 

 parasites are identical, the first full account of the mature Filaria sanguinis-hoTninis, 

 as found in India, was published, both in this country and in London, previous to the 

 appearance of Dr. Cobbold's description — having, indeed, been in the printer's hands 

 before Dr. Cobbold had even seen the Australian parasites. Dr. Cobbold, moreover, 

 refers to such prior publication in the appendix to his own article. 



This trifling oversight will, I have no doubt, be duly corrected should this 

 distinguished observer have occasion to write regarding these subjects in the future. 



In considering the question of the relation which may exist between the presence 

 of organisms in the circulation and disease, the conclusion is forced upon us that in 

 reality but little of a definite character is known. One thing, however, is clearly 



* Proceedings! of the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, vol. v., 1850-51. 



