364 PfiOr. T. S. COBBOLD ON THE 



by himself in Nos. 10 and 12 of the same periodical. No doubt 

 it was a feeling of isolation that at length induced Dr. Manson 

 to make me the instrument of bringing his later researches 

 before the public ; and I think it only fair to Manson that I 

 should quote an extract from his letter to me (dated Amoy, 

 November 27, 1877). He says, "Hive in an out-of-the- world 

 place, away from libraries, and out of the run of what is going 

 on, so that I do not know very well the value of my work, 

 or if it has been done before, or better." Those parts of Dr. 

 Manson's voluminous manuscript which give clinical details were 

 forwarded to the English periodical that first made the profession 

 acquainted with his writings (Eef. No. 21), whilst that part 

 of the MS. which deals with the more distinctly helminthic 

 aspects of the question are now submitted to the Society's hands. 

 Other sections of the MS. remain in my hands. These deal with 

 statistics and pathology. 



Amongst the other communications to which it is necessary 

 that I should refer, is one by Dr. Pedro S. de Magalhaes. Dr. 

 Magalhaes describes free Nematodes from the waters of Eio (Agua 

 da Carioca) ; but notwithstanding their similarity to the larvae of 

 our Filaria, I cannot regard them as having any genetic relation 

 with -F. lancrofti (Eef. No. 22). I may add that Drs. Chassaniol 

 and Gruyot mention the case of a chyluria patient, thirty years 

 a resident at Tahiti, in whom they observed "the parasite, 

 which in all respects resembled that described by MM. "Wucherer 

 and Crevaux" (Eef. No. 23). 



From what has now been stated it must be obvious to any un- 

 prejudiced person that (as in the parallel case of Trichina spiralis) 

 if it be asked who discovered Filaria hancrofti, the answer must 

 be framed according as to whether the inquirer refers to the 

 adult worm, to the embryonal forms, or to the intermediate larva. 

 To quarrel over the mere name of the parasite would be childish, 

 and serve only to bring uj)on helminthologists a repetition of 

 the criticism which Helmholtz has recently bestowed upon the 

 conduct of naturalists generally. I have partly stated the reasons 

 why I think Bancroft's name is most fittingly associated with 

 this parasite, and why it should supersede the nomenclature pro- 

 posed by Lewis (^Filaria sanguinis Jwminis). Apart from its 

 trinomial character, in itself an objection, the adoption of Lewis's 

 nomenclature practically ignores the earlier discoveries of 

 Wucherer and Salisbury ; yet, from the pathological standpoint, 



