C. Dobell 173 
group, but Kjellberg's case is omitted. Bulloch thus regarded all the human 
coccidia as identical with those of the rabbit 1 . 
Brumpt (1913), in his admirable Precis , also follows Leuckart and 
Blanchard. The hepatic coccidia of man are, he thinks, the same as those of 
the rabbit— Eimeria stiedae (called “ Coccidium cunicuh (Rivolta, 1878) ”). As 
a human case he quotes that of Gubler, and says “Dressier, Peris and Sattler, 
von Sommering (sic) and Leuckart, Silcock, etc., have recorded other cases.' 
The intestinal coccidia of man he regards as Eimeria perforans (called “Coc¬ 
cidium hominis (Rivolta, 1878)"), citing Eimer's cases as an example; but he 
adds that Isospora bigemina “has twice been seen in man”—perhaps referring 
to the cases of Railliet and Lucet. Blanchard’s “Eimeria hominis ” is de¬ 
scribed as a “doubtful coccidium.” 
In the new edition of Kolle and Wassermann’s Handbach there is an article 
on Coccidiosis by Jollos (1913). He follows Liihe in regarding Eimeria stiedae 
and E. perforans as the same species, and in referring to it all human cases of 
infection—with the reservation that some may possibly have been infected 
with /. bigemina. He gives no detailed account of the human cases, and does 
not appear to have inquired into them for himself. Had he done so he could 
hardly have adopted Llihe’s manifestly absurd conclusions. 
Now it will be clear, I think, to anybody who considers the opinions of the 
various authors just enumerated, that—in spite of much difference in matters 
of nomenclature—there is a general consensus of opinion concerning the 
identity of the coccidial parasites of man. It is very generally agreed that 
they are not forms peculiar to man himself, but species which occur usually 
in other animals—man being regarded as a casual or accidental host. It is 
thus generally supposed that the hepatic coccidia of man are the same as those 
commonly found in the liver of the rabbit; and similarly that the intestinal 
forms found in man are the same as those occurring in the intestine of the 
rabbit, whilst probably including also those found in the cat and dog. This, 
as will be evident from what has been said in the preceding section, I take 
to be a very perverse view of the facts. It appears to me to be a quite un¬ 
justifiable tradition which originated at a time when our knowledge of the 
Coccidia was in its infancy, and which even then had but little real founda¬ 
tion. 
But I will leave the discussion of this matter for the moment, and return to 
it again after considering the new facts, which more modern and competent 
investigation has brought to light, concerning the coccidia of man. 
Eimeria stiedae, is far from certain. One may well ask, indeed, whether anybody who saw the 
case at the time could have named the specific characters of E. stiedae : and from Silcock’s de¬ 
scription it is now impossible for anybody to determine the species of his organisms. 
1 With the exception of the doubtful organism of Kunstler and Pitres (“Eimeria hominis 
Blanchard”), which is also noticed. 
