C. Dobell 
169 
Eimeria stiedae of the rabbit. Virchow’s case 1 he regards as “analogous." He 
notes, however, for the first time, that there is a difficulty involved in this 
supposition: for the oocysts from Dressier's case, as figured in Leuckart, appear 
to be only about half the length of those found in the liver of the rabbit; whilst 
the structures described by Virchow were nearly twice as long as the latter. 
(See Blanchard (1889), p. 48.) 
The coccidia found in the human intestine by Kjellberg and Eimer are 
regarded by Blanchard as “ Coccidium perforans ” (i.e. as Eimeria perforans of 
the rabbit’s gut). He thus separates them from Isospora bigemina (= “ Cocci¬ 
dium Rivolta Grassi, 1881 ”) of the cat. Under the human cases of infection 
with E. perforans he also cites the findings of Rivolta and Grassi. He says: 
" Rivolta was able to observe coccidia, in the living state, in the excrement of 
children and adults: in a young boy he found, during nearly three months, 
that the coccidia were discharged with the dejecta. He found them also in a 
man afflicted with intermittent fever, and Grassi has published analogous 
observations"’ (Blanchard (1889), p. 48). As I hav r e previously pointed out, 
neither Rivolta nor Grassi really found coccidia in human faeces; and more¬ 
over, it seems clear that Blanchard confused with one another the observations 
of these two workers 2 . Rivolta’s “children and adults" appear to be the boy 
and the young man studied bv Grassi (1879), and these are presumably the 
“analogous" cases which the latter is said to have observed. 1 have cited this 
passage from Blanchard in extenso because it seems to me to have been largely 
responsible for the erroneous statement, which has been so frequently repeated, 
that Rivolta and Grassi discovered coccidia in the faeces of human beings. 
In a later work Blanchard (1896) expresses the same views, but with some 
change of nomenclature. He still considers the human hepatic coccidia to be 
the same as those in the rabbit, but calls them “ Coccidium cuniculi (Rivolta, 
1878)."’ As human cases he cites those of Gubler, Peris, Sattler, and Silcock. 
He also still considers most of the intestinal coccidia of man to be identical 
with the intestinal parasites of the rabbit: but he now names all of them— 
from both hosts—“ Coccidium hominis (Rivolta, 1878).” The human cases 
given are Eimer’s together with the alleged cases of Rivolta and Grassi once 
more. He adds Railliet and Lucet's two cases to these, but regards them as 
doubtful because the site of infection was not ascertained. On the present 
occasion, however, he says that Isospora bigemina (“Coccidium bigcminum 
Warded Stiles, 1891"’) also probably occurs in man. The only human case 
which he refers to this species is Kjellberg’s. The organisms described by 
Kunstler and Pitres are called “ Eimeria hominis R. Blanchard, 1895. " and 
1 That is, Virchow’s (1860) own case—not the case of Kjellberg recorded by him. 
2 Blanchard does not specify the works in which he found these observations. The only 
bibliographic reference to Rivolta is to the second edition (1884) of his “ Parassiti vegetali,'' which 
I have not been able to consult. It is possible that this differs from the first (Rivolta, 1873), which 
I have consulted; but from the fact that both contain the same number of pages and plates 
(according to Stiles and Hassall’s Index-Calalogue) this does not seem to me very probable. The 
explanation of Blanchard’s erroneous statement is, I believe, that given above. 
