212 The Philippine Journal of Science i9i9 
within a nuclear membrane. However, we do not consider that 
the material available to us in this case has been either suf- 
ficiently abundant or suitable for making the cytological study 
of the parasite that these remarks suggest. Now that we know 
of the presence of Pentatrichomonas in the Philippine Islands 
we shall watch f pr further infections with it, with a view to con- 
firming these observations and working out some of the details. 
A sufficient number of individuals was not forthcoming on our 
slides to enable us to make measurements that would justify us 
in giving the mean size of . this species. Those we measured 
varied in length from 14 /x to 18 /x and in width from 10 y. to 
13 fx. The anterior ffagella measured from 8 /x to 10 /x, and were 
approximately of equal length. 
This is the first time that Pentatrichomonas has been reported 
from the Philippine Islands, but as Chatterjee(4) has reported 
it as commonly occurring in India, we think it likely that when 
sought here it will be found to be of as frequent occurrence. 
Because of the lack of proper material for study we deem it 
unwise, for the present, to give specific designation to the form 
observed by us. Derrieu and Raynaud, who described a similar 
parasite from Algiers in 1914 under the name Hexamastix ardin- 
delteili,(5) gave measurements of from 10 /x to 15 /x in length 
and from 9 /x to 13 |U, in width. The flagella, they stated, varied 
in length from 10 /x to 17 y. Chatter jee’s Pentatrichomonns 
bengalensis, described by him in 1915, was said to vary in length 
from 8 /X to 10 /x, and in width from 5 y to 6 y, with a flagellar 
length of from 8 /x to 10 y. The few measurements made by 
us seem to fall fairly well between the two, but Mesnil(H) has 
already suggested a duality of species between Derrieu and 
Raynaud’s parasite (now included in the genus Pentatrichomo- 
nas) and Chatterjee’s Pentatrichomonas bengalensis. Fantham 
has concurred in this. In view of this, we refrain from bestow- 
ing a specific name on this parasite until we have had the oppor- 
tunity to check our observations on other cases and to make 
a more thorough study of the organism. 
DISCUSSION 
Notwithstanding the extreme limitations that were placed on 
our study of this single case, we regard the observation as an 
important one. We feel that it lends support to the contention 
of Chatter jee that Pentatrichomonas is pathogenic and may pro- 
duce dysentery in the general acceptance of that term. 
A few months ago one of us (F. G. H.) published a paper 
on the tissue-invasive powers of the flagellated and ciliated in- 
