C. Dobell 171 
unable to see any real resemblance between these two organisms and any 
Eimeria with which I am acquainted. 
Labbe (1896), in his first systematic account of the Coccidia, mentions 
briefly the forms recorded from man. He appears to regard them all as be¬ 
longing to one species 1 , which he calls “Coccidium hominis Rivolta”; but he 
says they “strongly resemble C. perforans and C. bigeminum ,” which—as also 
E. stiedae— he accepts as distinct species. As describers of “C. hominis ” he 
cites Eimer, Rivolta, Leuckart, Virchow (Kjellberg), and Railliet. The organ¬ 
isms of Kunstler and Pitres he considers very doubtful. In his later and 
more extensive work (Labbe, 1899) he appears to have changed his opinions: 
for we here find the hepatic coccidia of man referred doubtfully to Eimeria 
stiedae (“? Coccidium cuniculi Rivolta”), whilst the forms from the human 
intestine are regarded as a variety of the species occurring in the same situation 
in the rabbit. He calls them “ Coccidium perforans var. Kjellberg,’' and 
enumerates the cases of Kjellberg, Eimer, “Grassi, 1880,” and Railliet and 
Lucet, under this heading. 
Doflein (1901), and even later in the third edition of his text-book (1911). 
appears to believe that the hepatic and intestinal coccidia of man both belong 
to the same species as that occurring in the rabbit’s liver (E. stiedae). Infection 
of the human liver with this species has been, he says, “observed in repeated 
cases,” but he cites no authorities. He notes further that “some cases of 
coccidiosis in man ” may be due to infection with Isospora bigemina. 
The account of the coccidia of man given by Braun (1903, 1906), seems to 
be copied, with a few minor changes and additions, from Blanchard (1896, 
1900). The human hepatic coccidia are regarded as identical with those of the 
rabbit (“Coccidium cuniculi Rivolta, 1878”—that is, Eimeria stiedae). He 
cites the cases of Gubler and Silcock, and those recorded bv Leuckart 2 . 
Virchow’s case was possibly infected with the same organism. Kjellberg’s 
case he regards as one of infection with Isospora bigemina (“ Coccidium bi¬ 
geminum Stiles, 1891”); and he regards Railliet and Lucet’s two cases and 
the “coccidia” of Grunow as possibly coming under the same category. 
Blanchard’s “Eimeria hominis ” (Kunstler and Pitres’s case) he considers a 
doubtful form, and he rejects the cases of Jurgens and Thomas. 
The intestinal coccidia of man Braun regards, for the most part, as identical 
with those of the rabbit (Eimeria perforans)', and he includes all these in the 
one species “Coccidium hominis Rivolta, 1878.” As human cases he mentions 
those described by Eimer, and by Railliet and Lucet—the latter, as noted 
1 Vide Labbe (1890), p. 545; also his list of hosts and parasites, p. 502. 
2 I may note in passing that in the English translation of Braun’s work (Braun, 1900, p. 7!)) 
there is an amusing mistranslation of a passage dealing with one of Leuckart’s cases. We read: 
“Peris discovered coccidia in an old preparation of Sommcring’s agglomerations”—a statement 
which recurs in the new version of Braun’s A nimal Parasites, in which the section on the Protozoa 
has been re-edited by H. B. Fantham. Presumably the translator mistook v. Sommerring’s 
collection (“Sammlung”) of specimens for some kind of pathological accumulation (“Ansamin- 
lung”) in the liver! 
