C. Dobell 415 
admirable account of the spirochaetes of relapsing fever, and the first descrip¬ 
tion of the rat-trvpanosonie which now bears his name (Trypanosoma lewisi 
S. Kent). Further contributions to the study of cholera were made in the 
Reports for 1878 and 1882; and finally, a supplementary note on T. lewisi 
was published in the Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science in 1884. 
The foregoing rough list of works gives but a poor idea of Lewis’s manifold 
contributions to Parasitology. To be appreciated properly the originals must 
be read, and read in the light of our present knowledge—always remembering, 
of course, the ignorance which prevailed in his day. They are written in a simple 
almost homely style, but their candour, good sense, and obvious veracity 
lend them a singular charm. 
Lewis’s place in the history of tropical medicine and medical parasitology 
is not difficult to define. He was, like Manson, a pioneer. He was born three 
years earlier, but did not take his medical degree until two years after Manson 
took his at the same university. Manson was already at work in Formosa 
when Lewis saded for India; but it was Lewis, nevertheless, who made the 
first fundamental discoveries in connexion with filariasis. Moreover, Manson 
continued to live and labour for thirty-six years after Lewis’s premature 
death—to the no small benefit of Science; so that it is now difficult to realize 
that they once belonged to the same generation. But if Manson is the “ Father 
of Tropical Medicine” then assuredly Lewis is at least its Godfather: for it 
will not be forgotten that, in addition to his personal contributions to science, 
he founded, both in India and at Netley, a school and a tradition whose 
fruits are now visible to all the world in the researches and discoveries of the 
officers of the Indian Medical Service and the Royal Army Medical Corps. 
Shortly before his death Lewis was recommended by the Council of the 
Royal Society for election to the Fellowship—an honour which he did not 
live to see consummated. (He died before the election took place, and Adam 
Sedgwick was elected in his stead.) In his lifetime he received no other signal 
distinction from science or state. The Lancet, at the time of his death, remarks: 
It is not, we think, very creditable to the Government of this country or 
that of India that Lewis received no State recognition of his important services.” 
Those who value this kind of recognition will now agree that he was treated 
hardly: but those who do not will feel small sorrow that his name has become 
great without the embellishment of such ephemeral trappings. 
Lewis was an honest man and an honest worker. Honesty, common sense, 
and sound judgement, are the outstanding characters of his work. After 
reading his scientific papers we hardly need to be told that in his private life 
he was the same. His colleagues all spoke of him in similar terms. “ Lewis was 
a man of the most amiable and estimable character. Kindly in disposition, 
true as steel, brave, honest and faithful in all relations of life. He was an 
indefatigable worker, and as conscientious and careful in the observation of 
Pacts, as he was cautious and clear in their interpretation.” Could any man 
lesire a nobler epitaph? This was the saying of a friend at the time of his 
27_•> 
