C. Dobell 
157 
The account given by Kunstler and Pitres, taken in conjunction with then- 
illustrations 1 , is to me extremely puzzling. 1 am unable to form any exact 
idea of the true systematic position of their parasite. I am by no means con¬ 
vinced that it was even a sporozoon of any sort—still less that it was a 
coccidian belonging to a familiar genus. This, however, was the view taken 
by Blanchard, who, in 1895 2 , proposed the name “Eimeria ho minis ” for it. 
It is certain, at all events, that it cannot be placed in the genus Eimeria (Aime 
Schneider, 1875) as now understood; and Blanchard's proposal was undoubt¬ 
edly due to the imperfect knowledge of the coccidia prevailing at the time 
when he wrote. I conclude that “Eimeria hominis Blanchard is certainly 
not an Eimeria , and that future work alone can show what the organism in 
question really was. 
Podwyssozki’s cases. Podwyssozki (1889) stated that he had observed four 
human cases of infection of the liver with “coccidia/’ The “parasites" live 
in the cells and their nuclei; they are difficult to find and recognize; and they 
are probablv a cause of cirrhosis. “Thev attain the size of a considerable oval 
body, with a thick membrane, and containing one or several spores." The 
name “ Karyophagus hominis ” was first proposed for them (Podwyssozki, 
1889); but later their discoverer stated that they “belong to the family of the 
Coccidia and probably to the Coccidium oviforme " (Podwyssozki, 1892). It is 
difficult, however, to recognize any resemblance to the coccidia of the rabbit’s 
liver either in the descriptions or in the figures of these and similar structures 
published by Podwyssozki and Sawtschenko (1892). 
I shall not consider these “parasites " further here. There is, I think, no 
longer any doubt that Podwyssozki’s “coccidia”—like those described in 
cancerous growths by many others subsequently—were not coccidia at all, 
but cellular elements and cell-inclusions of various sorts which were mistaken 
for parasites. 
Railliet and Laceds cases. After redescribing the dog's coccidial parasite, 
originally called “ Cytospermium villorum intestinalium cams ' bv Rivolta, 
Railliet and Lucet (1890) briefly record that they had discovered a similar 
organism in human beings. They had two cases—a woman and her child, 
who had both long suffered from chronic diarrhoea. The parasites were found 
in the faeces. They had a “regular ovoid form,”. . .“a certain number con¬ 
taining granular protoplasm with numerous refractile globules,” whilst 
“others contained a large granular mass without these globules.” Their 
mean length was 15ycc, their breadth 10/u. The authors did not figure these 
1 Illustrations accompany their second paper (Kunstler and Pitres, 1884 a) only. The quota¬ 
tions given above are from their first paper (1884). 
2 I give this date on the authority of Blanchard himself (see Blanchard (1896, 1900) in 
bibliography). The first use of the name which I have been able to find is in his article in Bou¬ 
chard’s Traite, where he calls the organism “Eimeria hominis R. Blanchard, 1895,” but gives no 
reference to the work of 1895 in which he proposed the name. I have not been able to find it. 
The second volume of Bouchard’s work—in which Blanchard’s account appears—is dated 1890. 
