C. Dobell 
151 
the contents was sometimes contracted from the wall. Gubler regarded these 
structures as probably the “eggs of a distoma,” but emphasized their resem¬ 
blance to the “eggs” found in the liver of the rabbit. His descriptions are 
unaccompanied by figures 1 , but they appear to relate to bodies which certainly 
resembled the oocysts of Eimeria stiedae —the coccidian parasite of the rabbit’s 
liver. 
Gubler states that his observations were confirmed bv Davaine, to whom 
he showed his ‘‘ovoid cells." Davaine (1860), however, while agreeing that 
the “ oviform bodies ” were “ like the smaller variety 2 in the liver of the rabbit,” 
adds that, at the time when he saw them, they were “unfortunately in an 
advanced state of decomposition" (p. 263). Leuckart (1863), who did not 
himself see Gubler’s “cells,” says that the case should probably be regarded 
as one of “so-called psorosperm formation"; and later (Leuckart, 1879) he 
definitely pronounced the bodies to be “Coccidia." He considered them to be 
the same as those which he himself recorded from other cases (vide infra). 
Leuckart (1879, p. 279) claims that he was the first to point out “the true 
nature ” of Gubler's oviform bodies in 1863. It is true that he suggested (1863, 
p. 49, footnote) that they might be “ psorosperms," and added later (Appendix, 
p. 740) that they certainly were “psorosperms.” Nevertheless, his claim to 
have identified Gubler's bodies as coccidia in 1863 is not easilv reconciled 
J 
with his own statements at that date: for not only does he say elsewhere in 
this same work that “ in man psorosperms have not been found with certainty ” 
(p. 142), but he also says that, for his part, he is “most inclined to consider 
these \i.e. ‘psorosperms’] as pathological tissue-elements" (p. 49, footnote). 
No doubt he forgot these statements afterwards (1879). Virchow (1860), who 
considered “psorosperms" to be “entozoic" in character, had previously 
expressed the opinion that Gubler’s bodies were neither worm eggs nor 
psorosperms, but vacuolated cells such as he had found in cancerous growths. 
It seems clear, therefore, that neither Gubler nor his contemporaries were 
able to identify with certainty the bodies which he had discovered. This can 
scarcely be wondered at, when it is remembered that very little indeed was 
known about the coccidia at that date, and the most divergent views were 
held about their nature. Later writers, however, have been unanimous in 
regarding Gubler’s case as one of hepatic coccidiosis, and there is much to be 
said for this view. 
Kjellbergs case. The first case of intestinal coccidiosis in man appears to 
have been discovered by a Dr Kjellberg, of Stockholm, in the Pathological 
1 Leuckart, in referring to Gubler’s paper (1858), ends the reference with “mit Abbild.” Sec 
Leuckart (1879), p. 279, footnote. There are no figures, however, and no references to any, in the 
copies of the Mem. Soc. Biol, or Gaz. Med. Paris which I have consulted. 
2 Davaine (1860) considered that there were “two kinds of oviform corpuscle” in the liver 
of the rabbit. From his descriptions it appears that the “smaller variety” was merely a selection 
of the smaller-sized oocysts of Eimeria stiedae before their contents had undergone contraction 
and segmentation. 
