172 
Coccidia parasitic in man 
above, being possibly, however, I. bigemina. “Grassi’s and Rivolta's cases” 
may, he thinks, have been infected with the same organism ( i.e . E. perforans). 
Braun (1903, fig. 33, p. 67) gives, moreover, what purports to be a figure of 
the intestinal coccidia of man. It is labelled “ Coccidium hominis (Riv.) in 
sporulation. (After Riek).” It is, however, in reality copied from the figures 
given by M. Rieck (1888), whose drawings depict Eimeria perforans from the 
rabbit L 
Minchin (1903) does not discuss the coccidial parasites of man; but in his 
table of hosts and parasites—which is based upon that of Labbe (1899)—he 
enters li (?) Coccidium cuniculi (Riv.) ” as occurring in the human liver, and 
“C. perforans var. (Kjellberg I860) ” and “C. bigeminum, Stiles " as inhabiting 
the human intestine. Later (Minchin, 1907) he merely remarks that “the 
coccidia. . . are alleged to occur in man, but no case of human coccidiosis has 
yet been satisfactorily investigated” (p. 67). In his latest work on the Pro¬ 
tozoa (Minchin, 1912) the coccidia of man are—so far as I can discover—not 
even mentioned. 
Liihe (1906), in his article in Mense’s Handbuch , devotes some attention to 
the coccidia of man. He notices the cases of Gubler, Silcock, Dressier, Sattler, 
Peris, Eimer, Railliet and Lucet—-not failing to add, of course, “the cases of 
Grassi and Rivolta”—and makes the sweeping statement that “in all these 
cases probably Eimeria stiedae 2 was present.” It is almost incredible that 
anybody could thus incorporate the human parasites observed by Dressier, 
Eimer, and Railliet and Lucet, and the “bodies” found by Rivolta and Grassi, 
into one common species—the species occurring in the liver of the rabbit. 
Liihe’s opinion is so obviously untenable, indeed, that further criticism would 
be superfluous. It only remains to add that he regarded Kjellberg's case as 
one of infection with Isospora bigemina , though somewhat questionable; and 
Blanchard’s “ Eimeria ; hominis ” as a highly doubtful organism. 
Bulloch (1907), in Allbutt and Rolleston’s System of Medicine, in the main 
follows Leuckart and Blanchard. He regards the intestinal coccidia of man as 
Eimeria perforans (called Coccidium hominis) and the hepatic forms as Eimeria 
stiedae (called Coccidium, cuniculi). Under the former he mentions Eimer’s and 
Railliet and Lucet’s cases—to which are added the inevitable “cases of Grassi 
and Rivolta”; and under the hepatic cases those of Gubler, Peris, Dressier, 
Sattler, and Silcock 3 . Virchow’s (own) case is placed doubtfully in the same 
1 I mention this because Braun’s figures of U C. hominis, after Riek” have already been copied 
as illustrations of the human parasite. They are very misleading, and their identification has 
given me some trouble. I may note here also that a figure of the “coccidium of man,” called 
merely “ Coccidium hominis ” (without reference or acknowledgment), is given by Cammidge 
(1914), and appears to be a considerably retouched imprint from the same original. 
2 Liihe gives a list of synonyms of this species, in which he includes Eimeria perforans. I note 
that “ Coccidium perforans Leuck.” occurs in it twice, whilst C. oviforme Leuckart—perhaps the 
commonest of all—is omitted. Rivolta’s (1878) genus Psorospermium is wrongly given as “ Sporo - 
spermium .” 
3 Concerning this case Bulloch adds that it was “an undoubted case of infection with C. 
cuniculi That it was a case of coccidiosis may be readily admitted, but that the parasites were 
