192 
Cocculia parasitic in man 
oocysts with unsegmented contents—one of them degenerate and breaking 
up, the other with its contents contracted from the cyst. I have copied this 
last figure (Text-fig. 2, A), and give beside it (Text-fig. 2, B), an outline of a 
typical oocyst of Eimeria stiedae at a similar stage and the same magnification. 
Even when every allowance is made for differences of technique in draughts¬ 
manship, it is difficult to believe that the objects from which these drawings 
were made were identical, or even strikingly alike. To me it seems certain 
that if Dressiers drawings were even only approximately correct, then the 
hepatic coccidium of man cannot be Eimeria stiedae. How it comes about that 
all authors, for some forty years, have unanimously declared the two organisms 
to be identical, is a mvsterv which need not be discussed further here 1 . 
From the statements of Gubler, Leuckart, and 
Silcock, it seems justifiable to conclude that the 
lesions produced by the human parasite resemble 
those seen in the rabbit, and caused by E. stiedae. 
Silcock’s account, if correct, appears to indicate 
that the human parasite may also invade the 
spleen 2 , and possibly the gut. The clinical picture 
of human hepatic coccidiosis-—as presented by 
Gubler and Silcock—shows no particularly striking 
features. The condition is manifested, as might be 
expected, by enlargement of the liver, fever, and 
digestive derangements. It may be noted that the 
condition of Gubler’s case was diagnosed before 
death as due to a hydatid cyst; whilst Virchow 
(1860), from Gubler’s description, regarded it as 
probably a case of cancer, and Giles (1890) notes 
that it “ reads suspiciously like one of ankylo¬ 
stomiasis.” 
From the information available I conclude that 
there is probably a coccidial parasite which occurs very rarely in the human 
liver; that it resembles Eimeria stiedae , but is considerably smaller, and pro¬ 
bably belongs to the same genus, but to a distinct species; and that there is 
no evidence that Eimeria stiedae has ever been found in the human liver, or 
that this species can infect man 3 . It is clear that further observations alone 
can solve the problems connected with the human parasite, and the naming 
B 
Fig. 2. A, oocyst, with unseg¬ 
mented contents, of human 
hepatic coccidium. (From 
Leuckart, after Dressier.) 
B, oocyst of Eimeria stie¬ 
dae, from gall bladder of 
rabbit: stage in develop¬ 
ment similar to A. (Drawn 
with camera lucida.) Both 
magnified approximately 
1000 diameters. 
1 The explanation is doubtless that given by Bacon, in another connexion, some three hundred 
years ago. “For as things now are, if an untruth in nature be once on foot, what by reason of the 
neglect of examination, and countenance of antiquity, and what by reason of the use of the opinion 
in similitudes and ornaments of speech, it is never called down.” Adv. Learn., u, 1 (3). 
2 So far as I am aware, E. stiedae has never been found in this situation in the rabbit. 
3 It has been stated by Fantham (1917) that cases of infection with Eimeria stiedae have 
recently occurred “among patients from the Eastern war zones.” I can find no authentic records 
to justify this statement, and the figure of “Eimeria stiedae ” which accompanies it will hardly 
serve to carry conviction to those familiar with this organism. 
