435 
C. Dobell 
those of Eimeria oxyspora, it seems clear, from their dimensions and those of 
their spores, that they belong to a distinct species. The dimensions of the 
spores in the Coccidia are very constant; and I do not know of any accurately . 
described species which shows so great a range of variation in the form and 
size of its spores as that between E. oxyspora and the present organism. The 
relatively short spindle-shaped spores of the latter are quite distinct from the 
long whetstone-shaped spores of the former. 
In my “Revision of the Coccidia parasitic in Man 5 ’ (1919) I have discussed 
all the species of this group previously described: and Dr Snijders has pointed 
out that his Eimeria does not appear to belong to either of the intestinal 
species of this genus therein recognized— E. wenyoui and E. oxyspora. In this 
I fully agree; and I think Dr Snijders is to be congratulated, therefore, upon 
having demonstrated the existence of a hitherto undiscovered coccidium in 
man. There is a possibility, as he rightly points out, that the oocysts may be 
those of an Eimeria belonging to some other host; but there is, I believe, no 
evidence at present in favour of such a supposition. It seems probable that 
the parasite is one which belongs to man himself. It is, however, somewhat 
remarkable that all the species of Eimeria hitherto found in human stools are 
not only very rare, but apparently cause infections which are peculiarly 
transitory. Their cysts have suddenly appeared in the stools and then promptly 
vanished—never to return. 
Since I wrote my revision of the Coccidia of man, two papers purporting 
to describe new human cases of intestinal coccidiosis have appealed. The 
first, by Huetter (1919), records the finding of “ coccidia r ’ in sections of a 
rectal tumour from a woman: but even from the incomplete description of 
this case, it seems obvious that it was not really one of coccidiosis. Of the 
other* case of “coccidiosis (?)” recorded by Lockhart-Mummery and Gabriel 
(1919) I can speak with more confidence. I have seen a preparation of the 
structures interpreted as coccidia, and have no hesitation in saving that they 
are either coccidia nor protozoa of any sort. 
Drumpt (1918) has recently stated that the French Armies were infected 
to the extent of 0-2 to 0-33 per cent, with “ Eimeria (Coccidium )”: but—so 
far as I am aware—he has not described this organism. Chatton (1918, p. 218) 
states that he has found three cases of Eimeria infection in Southern Tunis, 
b\x<j does not name or describe the species. According to Mesnil (1919) it was 
pro ably E. wenyoni. 
So far as I am aware, therefore, Dr Snijders’ Eimeria belongs to a species 
which has not hitherto been described or named. I propose to call it 
E. snijdersi , in honour of its discoverer, and give the following diagnosis. 
For reasons already stated I have ventured to change the dimensions of the 
spores, as given by Dr Snijders, to those which I believe, from my own 
measurements of some of his specimens, to be conect. 
Eimeria snijdersi nov. spec. 
Oocyst colourless, spherical, 40-48/z in diameter. Spores fusiform, equally 
28—5 
