33 
Mcehlau (1S96) reported live cases for Butfalo, N. Y.. which were 
supposed to be due to the OldWorld pavasitv {A(/c/t t/Io.sff/wa dundenah). 
Gray (1901) recorded two cases for Kichiuond, Va., contracted else- 
where in the same State, which lie states positively (})ersonal conver- 
sation) were due to A<itdujloxtoma dnodmale^ and 'Fehaidt (1899) 
recorded a case of uncinariasis in a boy of Cierman descent in New 
Orleans. 
To one of my former pupils, Dr. Bailey K. Ashford (lltoo), of the 
U. S. Army, is unqiiestionablv due the credit of havin^r first seriously 
directed the attention of American physicians and zoologists to this 
disease." Ashford in fact found this malady very common in Porto 
Rico, and although he erroneously considered the parasite to be iden- 
tical with the Old World species, his clinical observations placed the 
American medical profession on its guard for cases which might occur 
in returning American ■ roops. 
In 1901 there was a sudden increase in American observations. 
Dyer (March 15, 1901) reported a case for St. Louis. Schaefer (May, 
1901) was reported in the proceedings of the Texas ^ledical Associa- 
tion (Texas Medical News, Ma}', 1901) as presenting a pa})er on a new 
form of intestinal parasite in Texas. The case in ([uestion was uncina- 
riasis, probal)ly due to TAncinana amerdana, but was not published as 
uncinariasis until October :26, 1901. 
Clay tor's (June, 1901) case is, so far as 1 am aware, the first pub- 
lished American case which can be recognized as unquestionably due 
to Urtrinuria (tmericana^ although at least some (and probably most, if 
not all) of Ashford's cases were caused l)v this species. Clay tor's case 
was originally published as an infection with the Old World species. 
AticJnjJostornd dimlcnaJeA^^n error for which the responsibility rests 
upon me, not upon Dr. Cla^ tor; the large-sized egg found should have 
j)laced me more on my guard). 
Allyn and Behrend (July 13, 1901) recorded an imported case in an 
Italian boy in Philadelphia, due apparently to Aijchijl Optoma dnod< u(dt\ 
and at the same time mentioned three unpublished cases diagnosed hy 
Dr. L. Napoleon Boston, two in 1900 and one in 19(H. All three cases 
came from Porto Rico, so that they were ])robably due to Cncinariu 
nmerinnut. 
«It is true, as has l>een state<l, that for some years prior to .Vshfonl’s jmhlication 
I had repeate<lly insisted upon the probability of the frnpient oeeiirrt*ru*e of tliis 
disease in the United States, havinj; disensse<l the siil)jt*et in my lectures on nunlical 
zoolojry in the j>ost-^ra<luate medical school of the U. S. .\rmy, an<l in the me<lical 
classes of Johns Hopkins University and of tii*orgeto\vn University (the latter, the 
alma mater of Dr. Ashford), as well as in various me<lical meetinjjs; hut so far as I 
am aware, my views were not printe<l until July, ItXtl, so that Ashford’s printiMl 
statements antedate mine hy more than a year. Furthermore, his |>aiH'r was a 
practical demonstration, while my views were theoretical deductions. 
19558 — No. 10— D3 
3 
