3 



In 1890, Maci ayden, Nencki, and Siebeh (40) published a valuable 

 piece of information. From the content of llie small inlesline of 

 a patient, collected by means of a fistula numerous platings were 

 made. Yeasts appeared in two of Ihe samples, moulds in two 

 otliers. No determination of the latter was made, but in one case 

 it is stated that the fungus in question resembled Oidium lactis. 

 The authors make the following statement (pp. 325 — 326): »Es isl 

 bemerkenswerth, dass nicht allein Spalt- sondern aucli Schimmel- 

 und Sprosspilze noch lebensfähig ans dem Darminhalt isolierl 

 wurden, nachdem sie also der Einwirkung des Magen- und des 

 Diinndarmsaftes unterworfen waren.» 



Hammerl (22), in 1897, made a study of the bacteria in human 

 faeces taken from vegetarians and meat-eaters. Moulds were isolated 

 on at least two ditferent occasions from the faeces of both of them. 

 No determinations, liowever, were made. It is stated that moulds 

 were fairly common, but that they never occurred in large numbers. 

 The author further asserts that these saprophytic moulds dis- 

 appeared when sterile food w^as taken. 



Among recent investigators, Moro (43) fii^ds species of Oidium 

 to be very common in human faeces, in fact so common, that it 

 can be demonstrated by cultivation to be present in every sample. 



There are undoubtedly additional references in the voluminous 

 medical literature to fungi found in the alimentary canal of man. 

 It is certain, however, that none of the more im portant works 

 with a bearing on this problem bas been overlooked. Reports on 

 the presence of moulds in diseased organs of the digestive apparatus 

 will be referred to låter. 



In the following account I have brought together some of the 

 scattered and meager accounts of fungi found in the alimentary 

 canal of animals, leaving out the numerous reports on coprophilous 

 fungi, which, biologically, have little or nothing to do with the 

 organisms to be discussed below. There are, no doubt, additional 

 ones hidden — as most of the following are — in bacteriological 

 treatises. Some apparent pathological cases are left out but will 

 be discussed låter. 



Hammerl, in liis paper cited above, found »widely distributed 

 saprophytes» in faeces of guinea pigs and rabbits, but fails to give 

 the species of these fungi. Kohlbrugge (32) also reports »moulds» 

 in the faeces of rabbit and adds (page 72): »Bei Tieren fand ich 

 sie dort nur ausnahmsweise. Sie gehen wohl schon im Mage zu 



