1914 Archives of Internal Medicine  
The observations on the parasitic amebas that have been made within recent years have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the species parasitic in the intestine of man, and it is the purpose of this contribution to give, as briefly as possible, the chief morphological points on which such a differentiation must rest, and the technic that I have found most helpful in demonstrating the morphology of these parasites. In order that what follows may be clear, a brief review of our
more » ... ef review of our present knowledge of the intestinal entamebas of man is necessary. HISTORICAL ACCOUNT In 1903, Schaudinn1 described and differentiated two species of entamebas parasitic in the intestine of man. One of these, the cause of the disease known as amebic dysentery, he named Entamoeba histolytica, while the other, a harmless commensal, he named Entamoeba coli. In 1905, while studying these parasites in soldiers invalided home from the Philippine Islands with dysentery, I confirmed Schaudinn's observations, and published my results in the summer of that year.2 In that paper I detailed the morphology of both species and the results of experiments on kittens with these entamebas, being the first to confirm Schaudinn's statements regarding the pathogenicity of E. histolytica, and the non-pathogenicity of E. coli to these animals. At that time I suggested that the ameba concerned in the causation of dysentery be named Entamoeba dysenteriae, but as the name dysenteriae was after¬ ward shown by Stiles3 to be merely a synonym of coli, I adopted Schau¬ dinn's name histolytica for this parasite. Hartmann,4 in 1906, confirmed Schaudinn's classification of the intestinal entamebas of man, but for several years the distinction between E. colt and E. histolytica was disputed by most authorities, largely owing
doi:10.1001/archinte.1914.00070120079008 fatcat:nqp23htlr5dzjghtfexjfcmrbi