150 
Co end ia parasitic in man 
of Wenyon were published, marks a turning point in our knowledge of the 
coccidia of man. After this preliminary analytic section, I will attempt to deal 
with the resultant facts in a synthetic manner, and to show as clearly as 
possible the present state of our knowledge of the whole subject. 
A. The Human Cases of Coccidiosis described prior to the 
year 1915. 
In dealing with the records of coccidia 1 infection of human beings, I shall 
first consider the observations of each worker separately, and as far as possible 
in historic sequence. I may remind the reader, however, before doing so, that 
the name Coccidium —now, as a generic name, generally replaced by Eimeria 
—was introduced by Leuckart in 1879, and that previous to that date the 
organisms now called coccidia were generally known as “psorosperms" ; whilst 
the condition of being infected with them—now called coccidiosis—was de¬ 
scribed as “psorospermosis 1 .” The name “psorosperm" was introduced by 
Johannes Muller, in 1841, to denote the spores of those remarkable organisms 
now called by Blitschli’s name Myxosporidia; and the coccidia were generally 
distinguished from these as “oviform" or “egg-like" psorosperms, on account 
of their resemblance to the ova of manv metazoa. It should be remembered, 
however, that “psorosperm" was a name often loosely applied not only to the 
coccidia but also to the spores of gregarines, and to other “Sporozoa" (Sarco- 
sporidia, etc.), and for a long time it had no very precise meaning. 
Gubler's case. The first recorded case of coccidiosis in a human being is 
probably that described by Gubler (1858, 1858 a) 2 . His patient was a quarrv- 
man aged 45 who died, apparently from peritonitis, in a Paris hospital. He 
suffered from digestive troubles, anaemia, and other disorders, and his liver 
was much enlarged. At the post mortem examination it was found to contain 
many tumours of cancerous appearance—some of them very large—in which 
were numerous “ovoid cells,” which Gubler was disposed to regard as “the 
eggs of helminths.” They are said to have been “at least four times larger" 
than the largest cells of the surrounding tissues, but no other indication of 
their size is given. As regards their structure, he says that “ some of them were 
very regularly ovoid with a perfectly distinct double contour, and completely 
filled with a finely granular contents, the others more or less flattened, 
shrivelled, and apparently empty.” The two ends of the “cells” were unlike 
—“one is rather blunter, the other shows a slight constriction. . .and ends 
with a small and somewhat flattened or even very slightly depressed surface, 
as though an operculum or micropyle were present." The protoplasm forming 
1 This term has survived until comparatively recently in medical literature, though it has 
long since vanished from zoology. Cf. Allbutt and Rolleston’s System, of Medicine, Vol. n, 1907, 
where the coccidia of man are reviewed under the heading “Psorospermosis.” 
2 See also Davaine (1860), p. 263, who quotes Gubler’s papers in extenso. So far as I have 
collated them, Gubler’s two papers are identical in contents. 
