24 Henry B. Ward 



by previous authors to F. loa would necessarily be withdrawn 

 from the list. That such species are found in Brazil one can 

 not doubt in view of the investigations of Daniels on Carib 

 Indians of British Guiana and of Magalhaes on various hosts in 

 Brazil itself. That any of these species occur in the eye I have 

 not yet found on record. 



Other cases referred to by some authors as F. loa or listed in 

 probable connection with that species should be stricken from 

 the list, on other grounds. One of the most difficult to explain 

 satisfactorily is the case of Barkan (1876). The patient, an 

 Australian, was operated upon in San Francisco for an eye worm, 

 and the specimen, which was submitted to Dr. H. Knapp^ ■ 

 *of New York, was pronounced upon microscopical examination 

 to be "Filaria mcdincnsis.''' There was no evidence that the 

 patient had ever been in any region where either the species noted 

 or F. loa, with which it might easily be confused, is endemic. 

 Consequently I am inclined to believe that the form was an 

 Australian filaria normally occurring in some other host, but 

 in this case appearing in man as an erratic. 



For various reasons noted in the bibliography one is not justi- 

 fied in assigning to Filaria loa the cases of De Mets (1876), 

 Kuhnt (1892), and Nordmann (1832). Although in all three 

 cases nematodes were actually demonstrated, they are so unlike 

 F. loa that their distinctness from this species can hardly be 

 questioned. Still less connection with F. loa have the cases of 

 Eversbusch, Fano, Malgat, Piccirilli, Quadri, and Scholer. The 

 specimens of Piccirilli were observed in the anterior chamber 

 of the eye, the worm seen by Scholer was in the lens, the other 

 objects were all located in the vitreous body. All of these cases 

 agree in that the supposed filaria was observed living in the eye 

 by means of the ophthalmoscope. Such evidence is exceedingly 

 questionable ; in most instances manifests its weakness on close 

 examination of the record, and in one case at least (Fano) dem- 

 onstrated its insufficiency by a second examination eight years 



1 Dr. Knapp kindly informs me that, at my request, he has made every 

 effort to trace the specimen, and that he fears it has been destroyed. 



294- 



