1882. | PROF. OWEN ON TRICHINA SPIRALIS, 573 
Thus it is plain that, of the two accomplished officers of the great 
Hospital and Medical School of Guy’s, the Prosector or Anatomical 
Demonstrator came to the conclusion that the corpuscles in question 
were a minute species of Hydatid or Cysticercus ; and the Physician 
inclined to the belief that they were ova of a new species of Dip- 
terous insect ; but Dr. Addison candidly owns “an unwillingness 
to draw an absolute inference from his experiment.” The contents 
of the cyst were neither seen nor suspected by either observer. 
Such was the state of knowledge when, early in February 1835, 
I received from Mr. Wormald, Demonstrator of Anatomy at St. 
Bartholomew’s Hospital, in which Medical School I then held the 
office of ‘ Lecturer on Comparative Anatomy and Physiology,’ por- 
tions of the muscular tissue of a subject to which his attention had 
been called on account of a gritty sensation perceived in dissection, 
and which, from the rapid blunting of the scalpels employed, he 
considered to be caused by deposition of specks of earthy matter. 
This was the sole indication which reached me when I made 
the microscopical investigation, resulting in the discovery of the 
worm, as detailed in my ‘ Memoir’ communicated to the Zoological 
Society of London, February 24th, 1835. 
In the course of the investigation I inferred that the cysts con- 
taining the worm defined as “ Trichina spiralis” were the corpuscles 
previously described by Hilton as ‘‘ Cysticerci.” At p. 321 of my 
‘Memoir’ I give the facts and inferences which led me to reject 
the conclusion that the cyst was a kind of Hydatid or Cysticercus, 
and state “‘ that the ‘ cyst’ is adventitious, foreign to the Hntozoon, 
and composed of the cellular substance of the muscles infested, 
morbidly altered by the irritation of the worm”’’. 
At the time of this discovery I was unaware of the fact, sub- 
sequently noticed in my paper, that Mr. (now Sir James) Paget had 
taken portions of the affected muscles to the British Museum, where 
they were microscopically examined in the Botanical Department, 
and the wormlet in the cyst clearly seen. 
Subsequently to the publication of ‘ Watson’s Lectures,’ which 
gave rise to other expressions of opinion besides Littré’s, it was 
announced that both Hilton’s and my observations had been antici- 
pated by an eminent Professor of Physiology of Heidelberg. In the 
issue of the ‘ Times’ newspaper of February 10th, 1866, insertion is 
given to the following ‘ Note’ from ‘‘ J. S. Cobbold, M.D., F.R.S., 
of No. 84 Wimpole Street :”—“ Sir, If Mr. Jabez Hogg is in error 
respecting the discovery of T'richina, so also is the Curator of Guy’s 
Museum. The ‘little bodies’ were first noticed by Tiedemann, in 
the year 1822, thus anticipating Mr. Peacock by six years.” 
No reference to the work or publication containing the record of 
Tiedemann’s alleged discovery was given ; and the only account which 
could have suggested or served as a basis of the letter to * The 
Times, I found in the following German _periodical—Froriep’s 
‘Notizen,’ Bandi. S. 64 (1821). It appears as a record of a patho- 
logical appearance observed by the eminent Professor of Physiology 
1 Zool. Trans. loc. cit. p. 322. 
