410 ENTOZOA. 



fied support. He writes (first edition, 1861, p. 322) as follows : — 

 " The most remarkable case on record in wHcli worms were passed 

 from tlie urinary bladder is one which is reported by Dr. Arthur 

 Parre, who has made some most careful dissections of the worm, 

 and observations on the anatomy of the ova (' Archives of Medicine,' 

 vol. i., p. 290). This is the case recorded by Mr. Lawrence in 

 Vol. I. of the 'Med.-Chir. Trans.' translated in the year 1811. It is 

 the only one on record. Dr. Farre describes the general characters 

 of the worm in the article 'Worms,' 'Library of Medicine,' vol. 

 v., p. 241. Rudolphi, on insufficient evidence, declared that these 

 worms were merely lymphatic concretions ; and, in consequence, 

 this interesting and authentic case has not yet been properly 

 noticed by writers on parasites. From the recent re-investigation 

 of the whole subject, there can be no doubt that Rudolphi was 

 wrong in his conclusions, and that these were real sterelminthous 

 worms. In his paper, above referred to. Dr. Farre at once sets all 

 doubt on the question at rest. He now describes the minute 

 anatomy of the worm, and the characters of the ova." 



Here, again, I am obliged to appear impolite, but truth 

 compels me to state that I cannot share in the views advo- 

 cated by Dr. Beale. I agree with him in admitting that the 

 bodies in question were not concrementa lymphatica, but I can- 

 not allow that they are Entozoa. They are evidently identical 

 with the vermiform masses contained in one of the bottles 

 sent to Rudolphi, of which we have the following account in 

 the Bnghsh version of Schneider's paper above quoted. They 

 are there described as follows : — " A second bottle contains several 

 slender shreds of matter, about an inch ia length, which have also 

 been noticed by Rudolphi, who describes them as ' concrementa 

 lymjjliatica.' Their structure and origin Dr. Schneider could not 

 determine with any certainty, but considers it not improbable that 

 they are portions of intestiae cut fine." It thus appears that up 

 to the time at which I am now writing, even those who differ from 

 Farre and Beale do not feel themselves at liberty to speak quite 



