Of eleven preparations of human hydatids which I observed in the Cambridge Anatomical Museum, apparently representing the same number of cases, seven were connected with the liver and one with the lungs. Those hydatids displayed in the “special series” of entozoa were of uncertain seat. From the recently published and valuable ‘Notes’ by Dr Bradbury, I have no doubt that considerable additions have been made to the Cambridge Collection since my last visit.
The museum at Oxford contains some choice specimens of hydatids, but I have only personally inspected a few of them. In the absence of original notes, however, I am indebted to the kindness of Mr W. Hatchett Jackson for supplying me with several interesting particulars. The anatomical department of the Oxford Collection shows from one particular case two hydatids that were found “under the dura mater.” In the pathological department we find one hydatid from the liver of a male subject, and also a preparation showing a number of small hydatids that were “coughed up from the lungs of a female.” There are also in this department (Dr Acland’s) two examples of hydatids from the diaphragm, apparently belonging to two separate cases. One is described as a large “hydatid in the diaphragm covered by the pleura,” whilst the other is spoken of as “springing from the diaphragm and projecting into the sac of the pericardium.” There is likewise a preparation showing a number of small specimens of hydatids that were passed per anum by a female. It is conjectured that they came from the liver.
The small pathological museum attached to the Brighton and Sussex Hospital is particularly rich in hydatids. Amongst others, it contains preparations illustrative of the remarkable case of hydatids in the region of the prostate, communicated by Mr Lowdell, in the ‘Lancet,’ in 1846.
The comparatively large museum adjoining the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital displays a choice series of hydatids, chiefly from the collection of the late Mr Crosse. That eminent surgeon prepared a special set of specimens to illustrate the process of natural cure by calcareous degeneration; and I may here, perhaps, be pardoned for mentioning that it was the study of these and other entozoa in Mr Crosse’s Collection, some thirty or more years ago, that first drew my attention to the phenomena of parasitic life. Illustrations of the helminths in question are still in my possession. In one case (which is instructive as indicating the possibility of death from the simplest form and commonest habitat of an hydatid) a lad, twelve years old, received a slight blow from a playmate. Something gave way, and death speedily followed. It was found by post-mortem examination that a solitary liver hydatid, rather larger than a cricket-ball, had been ruptured. Although the case is almost unique, it is nevertheless by no means pleasant to reflect upon the fact that under similar circumstances a slight blow might prove fatal to any one, no matter in what internal organ the bladder worm happened to be situated.
Before concluding my summary notice of the human hydatids contained in the metropolitan and certain other museums, there is an interesting literary contribution that I cannot pass unnoticed. In the November number of the ‘Indian Medical Gazette’ for 1870 an article occurs in which it is stated that the Calcutta Medical College Museum contains eighteen specimens of hydatid cysts of liver. This fact was, it seems, originally adduced to show, not the frequency, but rather the rarity, of the occurrence of hydatids in India. However, from a valuable communication by Dr James Cleghorn, which was published in the same periodical for the following March, it appears that hydatids of the liver are much more common in India than is generally supposed. This, he says, is owing to the circumstance that many of the so-called cases of tropical abscess are neither more nor less than examples of hydatid cysts that have suppurated. Besides Cleghorn’s evidence, we have the previous testimony of the Inspector General I. M. D., whose Report for 1868–69 I have already referred to in connection with Cysticercus in beef. He says: “During some three months’ regular observation of the animals killed at the Commissariat slaughter-house here, at least 70 per cent. of the beef livers may be calculated as thus affected. Cobbold, writing of the Tænia echinococcus, says that ‘this little tapeworm infests only the dog and the wolf.’ Therefore, considering the immense number of pariah dogs fed on the refuse of animals infected with hydatids, it seems more than probable that the parasite must attain its strobila condition in their intestines, and through them be eventually disseminated over the pastures on which the cattle graze.”
I now turn to a neglected phase of the subject from which much practical instruction may be gathered. The consideration of the pathological phenomena of hydatid disease as it affects the lower animals is of high interest, and no prejudice should induce any medical man from accepting such useful data as may be gathered from this source. The facts of hydatid parasitism in animals, though often peculiar, are, for the most part, of an order similar to those presented in the human subject. If any medical practitioner thinks it beneath his dignity to study the pathology of the lower animals, the conduct of John Hunter in this respect is a standing protest against such narrowness.
The museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England contains some of the finest specimens of hydatids from the lower animals that are to be seen anywhere, the very choicest of them having been selected by Hunter himself. That distinguished man sought information from every available source, and hydatids were for him of almost equal interest, whether found in the body of a human being or in the carcase of an ox or an ass. Now, at all events, neither pathologists nor sanitarians can well afford to neglect comparative pathology; and, for myself, I am free to say that the yearly exposition to the students of the Royal Veterinary College of the phenomena of parasitic life amongst animals has brought with it an ever-increasing knowledge of the most curious and often unlooked-for information. Some of the data thus supplied are quite remarkable. Let me also add that my studies of the entozoa of wild animals have put me in possession of particulars of high value in regard to the larger question of the origin of epidemics. Beasts, birds, reptiles and fishes, of every description, are liable to succumb to internal parasites, and there is practically no end to the variety of useful information to be obtained from this source. I have collected materials almost sufficient for a separate treatise on this department of the subject, but I fear I shall never have either the time or opportunity to give the facts due publicity. Here, for obvious reasons, I must for the most part restrict myself to the hydatids properly so called.
Referring, in the first instance, to the hydatids of animals that have the same mode of origin and exhibit the same general characteristics as those found in man, I notice that four of the metropolitan museums exhibit nine examples of liver Echinococci. The Hunterian Collection shows specimens of this kind from the pig, monkey, zebra, and lion. The museum at St Bartholomew’s Hospital contains two examples from the pig and one from a cow; whilst the animal liver-hydatids preserved in the King’s College and Guy’s Museums, respectively, are from the pig and sheep. That from the latter is partly calcified. Respecting animal hydatids affecting the lungs, the Cambridge Museum exhibits a simple acephalocyst from a monkey, and the Guy’s Hospital Museum shows a pulmonary hydatid from the kangaroo. In the museum at Oxford, Dr Acland’s (pathological) department shows a preparation of “one large echinococcus cyst from the abdomen of a baboon,” whilst Dr Rolleston’s department (anatomical) displays the echinococcus itself from the “cavity of the abdomen of the same animal.” The collection also contains a variety of other bladder worms from different animals. The Hunterian Museum, Lincoln’s Inn, exhibits four or five alleged examples of hydatids from the kidney of the sheep, besides another from the spleen. Some of these are of very doubtful character. A cystic kidney from the sheep, preserved in the London Hospital Museum, and originally supposed to have been due to hydatids, is (as hinted in the MS. catalogue) certainly not of parasitic origin. In regard to the occurrence of hydatids in the heart of animals the Hunterian series shows two good examples from cattle, whilst the collection at University College exhibits one taken from the wall of the left ventricle of a sow. This was presented by Dr Elliotson.
In the museum of the Royal Veterinary College there are a number of excellent preparations of true hydatids taken from various animals, especially from cattle, swine, and sheep; and there are also many kinds of bladder worms which, though often called “hydatid” by veterinarians, have a totally different origin from that of the true Echinococci. The so-called gid-hydatids (Cœnuri) and slender-necked hydatids (Cysticercus tenuicollis) are of this description. Specimens of the polycephalous brain hydatid, or Cœnurus, also exist in the museums connected with St Bartholomew’s, Guy’s, and St Thomas’s Hospital Medical Colleges, as well as in both the anatomical and pathological departments of the Oxford Museum. Specimens of large Cœnuri occurring in the soft parts of rabbits may be seen in the Guy’s Museum (presented by Mr Carpenter). Similar characteristic specimens exist in the Oxford Collection, labelled C. cuniculi, obtained from the “masseter and infraspinatus” muscles of a rabbit. My private collection also contains a recent addition of this remarkable hydatid, sent to me by Mr Alston from Ayrshire. It is the only one I have seen from Scotland. In the second half of this work these Cœnuri will again come under notice. Three examples of the slender-necked hydatid (from a monkey and two sheep respectively) may be seen in the Guy’s and University College Collections, and there are several in the museum of the Royal Veterinary College.
I cannot go out of my way to speak of other bladder worms, except so far as to call attention to the heart of a bear preserved in the museum at Guy’s, the walls of which are crowded with Cysticerci. That unique preparation ought to be carefully examined and described. The Hunterian Museum contains two magnificent specimens of hydatids affecting the bones of cattle. In the one case a solitary vesicle occupies the shaft of the humerus; whilst in the other several “acephalocysts” have taken up their residence within the cancellous structure of the ilium.
In the matter of human mortality from hydatids I have already supplied statistical evidence of the unenviable distinction which our Australian colonies exhibit, and in addition to the facts brought forward I may add that Dr Lewellin has mentioned to me a fatal case in which an hydatid occupied the whole length of the vertebral canal. The patient was under Dr Annand’s care. There could be no doubt as to the genuineness of the case, as the spinal cyst was tapped during life, when echinococcus hooklets were found.
Through Dr Lewellin I am also indebted to Dr H. B. Allen, pathologist at the Melbourne Hospital, for the particulars of a case of hydatids of the cerebrum, which are given as follows:
“J. Q—, aged 15, was admitted into the Melbourne Hospital on the 13th November, 1877, suffering from partial left hemiplegia. He rapidly became insensible and died next day. His mother furnished the following history.
“He had been woodcarting in the bush for a considerable time, and while thus engaged eight weeks before admission began to lose power in his left arm and leg; gradually the paralysis increased, and he was taken home, where he remained for six weeks. During this time he had every week an attack of severe headache, and once he lost all sight for over half an hour. Gradually the symptoms increased, and he was taken to the hospital, but even then was able to walk with assistance part of the way.
“At the autopsy, when the calvarium was removed, a large cyst about four inches in diameter was found on the mid-convexity of the right hemisphere of the cerebrum, slightly towards its anterior part. It formed a marked prominence on the anterior surface of the brain, and was bounded superficially by the pia mater and arachnoid, which were neither noticeably thickened nor adherent to the dura mater. On opening the cyst it was seen to extend inwards and abut on the wall of the lateral ventricle, and consisted of the ordinary gelatinous membrane, studded internally with little granular eminences, some pellucid, some opaque white. The contents were thin limpid fluid. The brain tissues around presented scarcely any induration. All other organs structurally healthy, congestion being the only morbid condition present.
“The specimen is preserved in the hospital museum, which contains two other preparations of hydatids in the brain, and also an hydatid cyst of large size growing from the interior of the frontal bone.”
In concluding this account of hydatids I may remark that, by the employment of sanitary measures, the disorder might, in course of time, be thoroughly stamped out. What these measures are I have already stated.
I need hardly say that the following bibliography by no means exhausts the records of echinococcus disease. In Dr Albert Neisser’s recent monograph nearly a thousand separate cases are quoted and classified. The monograph of Dr Hearn, which is not mentioned in Neisser’s work, also contains a valuable bibliography.
English literature. Hydatids in general (Bibliography No. 20 a).—Ballard, E. (review of Henoch), ‘Med.-Chir. Rev.,’ 1854.—Bird, S. D., ‘On Hydatids of the Lung; their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment,’ 2nd edit., Melbourne, 1877.—Busk, “On the Nat. Hist. of the Echinococcus,” ‘Micr. Soc. Trans.,’ orig. series, vol. ii, 1849.—Budd, G., ‘Diseases of the Liver,’ Lond., 1845.—Carmichael, R. (lecture), ‘Dub. Med. Press,’ 1840, p. 91.—Cobbold, T. S., ‘Entozoa,’ chap. vii and viii, 1864.—Idem, “On Hydatid Disease” (lecture), ‘Lancet,’ June, 1875, p. 850.—Idem, “On Hydatid Diseases of Man and Animals” (museum specimens), in a series of articles contributed to ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Oct., 1875, to Jan., 1876; fully reprinted in the ‘Veterinarian,’ Feb., 1876.—Copland, J. (Art. “Hydatids”) in his ‘Dictionary,’ 1848.—Davies, T., ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1835.—Gairdner, J., and Lee, ‘Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1844.—Goodsir, H. S. D. (same ref., Lee’s case), 1844.—Goodsir, J. (same ref.), 1844.—Gross, S. D., ‘Elements of Path. Anat.,’ chap. xv, Boston, U.S., 1839.—Hawkins, C., ‘Lancet,’ 1833.—Hjaltelin, ‘Edinb. Med. Journ.,’ 1867; see also Dobell’s ‘Report on the Progress of Practical and Scientific Medicine,’ London, 1870.—Hodgkin, T., in his ‘Lectures on the Serous and Mucous Membrane,’ 1838.—Kerr, W. (art. “Hydatids”) ‘Cyclop. of Pract. Med.,’ 1833.—Leared, A. (prevention), ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ 1863.—MacGillivray, P. H. (see below, miscell. cases).—Murchison C., in his ‘Clinical Lectures,’ Lond., 1868, p. 54; 2nd edit., 1877.—Idem, “Hydatid Tumours of the Liver; their danger, their diagnosis, and their treatment,” ‘Edinb. Med. Journ.,’ 1865.—Nettleship, E., “Notes on the Rearing of Tænia echinococcus in the Dog from Hydatids, &c.,” ‘Proc. Royal Soc.,’ 1866, p. 224.—Rose, C. B., “On the Vesicular Entozoa, and particularly Hydatids,” ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1833–4, p. 204.—Stephens, ‘Lancet,’ 1833; the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1831, p. 284.—Thompson, T. (remarks), ‘Lancet,’ 1851.—Wilson, E., “On the Structure, Classification, and Development of the Echinococcus hominis,” ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ 1845.—Yates, G., “On Hydatid Disease,” ‘Assoc. Med. Journ.,’ vol. iii, 1855.
Hydatids of the liver (Bibliography No. 20 b).—Abercrombie, T., ‘Lond. Med. Journ.,’ vol. ii, p. 276, 1829.—Alison, S. S., ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1844.—Barclay, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Nov., 1868, p. 494.—Barker, T. A. ‘Lancet,’ and ‘Path. Soc. Trans.’ 1855.—Barlow, ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1857.—Beith, ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1852.—Bradbury, J. B. (six cases), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Oct., 1874, pp. 526–558.—Idem, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1876, vol. ii, p. 646.—Brinton, ‘Lancet,’ 1854.—Idem, ‘Lancet,’ 1858.—Bristowe, T. S., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1851.—Idem, ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1858.—Broadbent, W. H., “Hydatids of the Liver; Paracentesis followed by free Incision;” ‘British Med. Journ.,’ Nov. 30th, 1878.—Brodie, B. C. (supposed), ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1828.—Brook, C., ‘Lancet.,’ Feb., 1868, p. 162.—Buchanan, ‘Surg. Med. Gaz.,’ 1861.—Budd, W., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1859.—Chambers, T. K., ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1846.—Cox, T., ‘Lancet,’ and ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ 1838.—Crosse, J. G., ‘Lancet,’ 1837.—Curling T. B., ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ 1840.—Daly, O. (supposed), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1859.—Davies H., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1848.—Dickenson, ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1861; ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1862.—Duncan, A. (near the portal vein), ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1808.—Duncan, P. M. (several cases), ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1850–52.—Elliotson, J., ‘Lancet,’ 1832.—Fearn, S. W. (immense cyst), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Nov., 1868, p. 496.—Fletcher, T. B. E., ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1846.—Freer, W. G., ‘Lancet,’ and ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1845.—Gaitskell, W. (1000 discharged) ‘Lond. Med. Repository,’ 1815.—Gulland, ‘Edin. Med. Journ.,’ 1860.—Harley, J., ‘Lancet,’ May, 1866, p. 538, and ‘Med. Chir. Trans.,’ 1866.—Idem, in ‘St Thomas’s Hospital Reports,’ 1877, p. 291.—Hastings, C., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1858.—Heaton, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Oct. 31st, 1874, p. 557.—Heckford, N., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Sept., 1868, p. 332.—Hillier, ‘Lancet,’ and ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1855.—Hutchinson, J., ‘Lancet,’ Oct., 1862.—Inglis, A., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1859.—Leared A. (Hjaltelm’s case), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1863.—Logan (thousands present), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ and ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ March, 1865, p. 243.—Lyon, E. (several cases), ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1850.—Murchison, C. (rupture through pleura), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1861.—Idem, ‘Lancet,’ July, p. 75, 1868.—Page, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ Nov., 1864.—Pavy, F. W. (expectorated), ‘Med. Gaz.,’ 1851.—Idem, ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ Sept., 1866, p. 234.—Peacock (two cases, expectorated), ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ 1850.—Pemberton, O. A. (rupturing diaphragm), ‘Prov. Med. Journ.,’ 1848.—Philipson, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Oct. 31st, 1874, p. 557.—Pollock, J. (fatal), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1854.—Idem (opening into lung), ‘Lancet,’ Jan., 1865, p. 63.—Rees, G. O., ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1848.—Idem (lecture), ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1849.—Richards, C. C., ‘Lancet,’ Jan., 1865, p. 261.—Roberts, ‘Lancet,’ 1833.—Russell, J., ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1851.—Sadler, M. T. (Cæsarean section), ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ Aug., 1864, p. 141.—Salter; H., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1860.—Savory, W. S. (letter), ‘Lancet,’ May, 1866, p. 410.—Sherwin, H. C. (fatal), ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1823.—Sibson, F., ‘Lancet,’ July, 1868, p. 76.—Sloane, J. (puncture), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1858.—Thompson H., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ 1858.—Trimnell, G. C., ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1821.—Ward, S. H., ‘Lancet,’ 1868, vol. ii, pp. 141, 305, and 474.—Wearne, V. (perforating diaphragm), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ July, 1864, p. 31.—Wilks (escaping by gall-ducts), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1860.—Young, J., ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1829.
Hydatids of the liver and other organs together (Bibliography No. 20 c).—Beale, L. (kidney), ‘Arch. of Med.,’ vol. i, p. 31, 1857; see also same case by Bristowe, ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1853.—Billing (lungs), ‘Lond. M. and S. Journ.,’ 1831, p. 58.—Griffith, J. W. (abdomen), ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1844.—Heslop, T. P. (kidney), ‘Month. Journ. of Med. Sci.,’ 1850.—Richardson (kidney, Dr Mackinder’s case), ‘Lancet,’ 1855.
Liver cases occurring in America (Bibliography No. 20 d).—Alexander, E. (200 present), ‘Boston Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1838.—Finnell, ‘New York Med. Journ.,’ 1856, p. 216.—Minot, T. (expectorated), Bost. Soc. for Med. Improv., 1859, and ‘Brit. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1860, p. 297.—Webber, J. E., ‘New York Med. Times,’ 1853, and ‘Bost. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1853, p. 126.
Hydatids of the lungs and pleura (Bibliography No. 20 e).—Cholmeley, ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1837.—Dowling, F., ‘Australian Med. Journ.,’ 1864.—Duffin, A. B., ‘Beale’s Archives,’ 1857, vol. i, p. 253.—Hare, ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1857–8.—Hill, J., ‘Med. and Philos. Comm.,’ 1784, vol. ii, p. 303.—Hutchinson, J., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1854.—Kirkes, W. S., ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ 1851.—Leared, A., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1857.—Peacock, ‘Lancet,’ 1850.—Ridge, J., ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1836, p. 507.—Rigden, G., ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1852.—Smith, F. G., ‘North Amer. Med.-Chir. Rev.,’ 1858, p. 333.—Todd, R. B., ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ 1852.
Hydatids of the Kidney (Bibliography No. 20 f).—Adams, A. L., ‘Lancet,’ 1864, p. 375.—Barker, T. H., ‘Glasg. Med. Journ.,’ 1855–6, p. 439.—Duncan, ‘Liverpool Med. Journ.,’ 1834.—Dunn, J., ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1817.—Fussell, E. F., ‘Lancet,’ 1851.—Lettsom (two cases), ‘Trans. Med. Soc. of Lond.,’ 1789, p. 33.—Ward, W., ‘Lancet,’ 1846.—Wilson, J. (lecture) ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1822.
Hydatids of the spleen, omentum, and abdominal cavity (Bibliography No. 20 g).—(Anonymous), ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1819, p. 50.—Bailey, F., ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1826.—Bright, R. (remarks on cases) ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1838.—Bryant, T. (simulating ovarian disease), ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1868, p. 235.—Budd, G. (omentum), ‘Med. Times,’ 1838.—Idem (rep. by Parsons), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1859.—Burman, ‘Prov. Med. Journ.,’ 1847.—Crowther, C., ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1826, p. 49.—Greenhow, E. H., ‘Lancet,’ 1862.—Little, W. I. (simulating ovarian disease), ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1857.—Macleay, K., ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1806.—Morley, J. (partly pelvic), ‘Lancet,’ 1845.—Newman, W. (simulating ovarian disease), ‘Obstetr. Soc. Trans.,’ vol. iv, 1862.—Obre (peritoneal), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1854.—Ogle, J. (omentum), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1860.—Simpson, A. R. (peritoneal), ‘Edin. Med. Journ.,’ 1861–62.—Simpson, J. Y., ‘Assoc. Med. Journ.,’ 1854, p. 137.—Thompson, T., ‘Lancet,’ 1843.—Thompson, A. T. (simulating ovarian disease), ‘Lancet,’ 1833.
Hydatids within the pelvic cavity (Bibliography No. 20 h).—Birkett, J. (voided), ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.,’ 1851, p. 300.—Bryant, T., ‘Lancet,’ 1865, pp. 566 and 589.—Corrigan (ovarian), ‘Dub. Quart. Journ.,’ vol. i, 1846.—Crampton (ovarian), ‘Dub. Quart. Journ.,’ vol. ii, 1846.—Curling, T. B. (bladder), ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ 1863.—Farre, A., ‘Lancet,’ 1862.—Habershon, ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1860.—Hughes, ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1861.—Hunter, T., ‘Trans. of Soc. for Improv. of Med. and Chir. Knowledge,’ 1793, p. 34.—Jennings (simulating pregnancy), ‘Dublin Quart. Journ.,’ 1855.—Lowdell, ‘Lancet,’ 1846.—Maunder, ‘Lancet,’ Sept., 1864, p. 351.—Sadler, M. T. (voided), ‘Med. Times and Gaz.’ 1865.—Simon, J. (voided), ‘Lancet,’ 1853.—Wakley, ‘Lancet,’ 1863.—White, ‘Med. Gaz.,’ 1842.
Hydatids of the heart and blood-vessels (Bibliography No. 20 i).—Bigger, ‘Dub. Path. Soc.’ Rep. in ‘Lancet,’ 1830.—Budd, G., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1839.—Coote, H., ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1854.—Goodhart, ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ Nov. 27, 1875.—Price, D., ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1822.—Smith, R., ‘Lancet,’ 1838.—Trotter, ‘Chem. and Med. Essays,’ 1736.—Wilks (Henderson’s case), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1860.
Hydatids of the brain and cranial cavity (Bibliography, No. 20 k).—(Anonymous) ‘Lancet,’ April, 1864, p. 444.—Bailey, F., ‘Lancet,’ 1825; ‘Lond. Med. Repos.,’ 1826.—Barker, T. A., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1858.—Bennett, J. R., ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ Jan., 1862.—Berncastle, J., ‘Lancet,’ 1846.—Bree, C. R., ‘Lancet,’ 1837.—Brittan, F., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1859.—Burton, ‘Med. Times and Gaz.,’ 1862.—Dagleish, G., ‘Lancet,’ 1832.—Fletcher, T. B. E., ‘Assoc. Med. Journ.,’ vol. iii, p. 161, 1855.—Headington, ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ vol. xv, 1819, p. 504.—Helsham, ‘Med. Comment.,’ vol. xiii, 1788, p. 289.—Macnamara, W. H., ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ vol. ii, p. 616, 1876.—Rigden, G., ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1852.—Stewart, J., ‘Lancet,’ 1848.—Sturton, ‘Lancet,’ 1840.—Wilson, E., ‘Lancet,’ 1848.
Hydatids of the bones (Bibliography No. 20 l).—Cobbold, T. S., “Notice of Specimens of Tibial Hydatids in Nottingham,” ‘Brit. Med. Journ.,’ 1865, and in the ‘Veterinarian,’ Feb., 1866.—Idem, “Notice of Specimens from the Tibia in the Mid. Hosp. Museum,” ibid.—Cooper, A., “Foster and Lucas’s case affecting the Tibia,” ‘Surg. Essays,’ Lond., 1818.—Coulson, W. (tibia), ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ 1858; see also Daubeny, H., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1858.—Erichsen, J. E., in his ‘Surgery,’ 4th edit., pp. 728, 823, and 948, Lond., 1864.—Hunter, W. (tibial, Mus. Spec. at Glasgow), quoted in ‘L’Expérience,’ 1838, p. 531.—Keate, R. (os frontis), ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ 1819.—Lambert, J. (tibia), ‘Lancet,’ 1826.—Thompson, H. (Hearne’s tibial case), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1859.—Webster, F. W. (tibia), ‘New Eng. Med. Journ. of Med. and Surg.,’ 1819.—Wickham, W. J. (tibia), ‘Lond. Med. and Phys. Journ.,’ 1827.
Hydatids of the breast, muscles, and soft parts (Bibliography No. 20 m).—Adams, J. (abdominal parietes), ‘Lancet,’ 1851.—(Anonymous), “Hyd. in the Eye of a Girl,” ‘Boston Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1849, p. 28.—Baird, J. (muscles), ‘Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1821.—Birkett, J. (mammary), ‘Lancet,’ March, 1867, p. 263.—Brodie, B. C. (near scapula), ‘Lancet,’ 1818.—Bryant, T. (thigh), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1859.—Idem (thigh), ‘Lancet,’ 1862.—Idem (breast), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ Nov., 1865, p. 565.—Cholmeley (from right side), ‘Lancet,’ 1826.—Cooper, B. B. (neck and breast, two cases), ‘Guy’s Hosp. Rep.’ 1851.—Idem, in Birkett’s work on the ‘Breast,’ p. 183; the ‘Institute,’ vol. i. p. 119, 1850.—Dixon, J. (neck), ‘Lancet,’ 1851.—Henry, M. (breast), ‘Lancet,’ Nov., 1861, p. 497.—Hewndon, A. (neck), by Tyson, in ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1706–7, vol. xxv, p. 2344.—Jones, S. (subperitoneal), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1854.—Rankine, J., “Supposed Hyd. in Synovial Sheaths,” ‘Edin. M. and S. Journ.,’ 1830.—Sands (neck), ‘Amer. Med. Times,’ 1861, vol. ii, p. 376.—White (breast and arm), ‘Lancet,’ 1839.
Hydatids of uncertain seat, or miscellaneous cases and observations (Bibliography No. 20 n).—Barrett, ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1838.—Durrant, C. M. (Ipswich Hosp.), ‘Prov. Med. and Surg. Journ.,’ 1851.—Fagge, H., ‘Lancet,’ July, 1868, p. 76.—Greenhow, J. M. (intestinal), ‘Lancet,’ 1823.—Howship, J. (case, with speculative remarks), ‘Edin. M. and S. Journ.,’ 1835.—MacGillivray, P. H. (orbit, &c.), ‘Austral. Med. Journ.,’ Aug., 1865.—Idem, ibid., March, 1867.—Idem (3rd series of cases), ibid., July, 1872.—Idem (treatment with kamala), ibid., July, 1872.—Markham, W. O., “On the ‘son hydatique,’” ‘Assoc. Med. Journ.,’ 1856, p. 1072.—Musgrave (letter to Sir H. Sloane), ‘Phil. Trans.,’ vol. xxiv, 1704–5.—Phillips, ‘Lancet,’ July, 1868, p. 77.—Russell, J. J., ‘Dub. Journ.,’ 1838.—Salter, H., ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1854.—Ward, T. O., ‘Lond. Med. Gaz.,’ 1837.
Hydatids of animals (acephalocysts) (Bibliography No. 20 o).—Böllinger (see Bibl. No. 49).—Cobbold, ‘Manual,’ l. c. (Bibl. No. 2), 1874.—Crisp, E. (in a turkey and in hogs), ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ 1863.—East, J. (see Steel).—Findeisen, “Echin. in der Lunge,” ‘Repertorium für Thierheilkund.,’ 1875, s. 48.—Gross, S. D. (in swine), ‘Elements of Path. Anat.,’ 1845, p. 118.—Hunter, J., “A Cyst (hydatid) which was filled with water, formed in and filling up the Bone (humerus) of an Ox (from Hunterian MS.),” more fully described in the ‘Catalogue of the Mus. Lond. Coll. Surg.,’ “Path.,” vol. ii, prep. No. 864, p. 201, 1847.—Idem, “On Hydatids in Sheep” (supp. to Trans. of a Soc., l. c., supra), 1793.—Hutchinson, J., “Hydatid in the Eye of a Horse,” ‘Path. Soc. Trans.,’ and ‘Lancet,’ 1857.—Huxley, T. H., “On the Anatomy and Development of Echinoc. veterinorum (from a Zebra),” ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.,’ 1852.—Kirkman, J., “Chronic Disease of the Bones of the Cranium of a Horse, associated with the existence of Hydatids within a Cyst at the inferior part of the Orbit,” the ‘Veterinarian,’ vol. xxxvi, p. 77, 1863.—Lepper, “Hydatids in the Kidney of a Lamb,” the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1863, p. 524.—Martin, J. (in the liver of a sow), ‘Vet. Assoc. Trans.,’ 1842–3, pp. 330 and 364.—Moorcroft, W. (in the brain of a cow), ‘Med. Facts and Observ.,’ vol. iii, 1792.—Morgan, A. (in the brain of a mare), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1855, p. 396.—Peech, S. (in the muscles of a horse), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1854, pp. 80 and 209.—Siedamagrotzky (see Bibliog. No. 49).—Simonds, J. B., “Remarks on Mr. Scruby’s case of Hydatids in the Liver of a Sheep,” ‘Trans. of Vet. Assoc.,’ 1842–3, p. 331.—Steel, J. H. (in liver of a cow; Mr East’s case), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1878, p. 441.—Stoddart (in liver of a cow), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1838, p. 637.—Thudichum, J. L. W. (in sheep), ‘Assoc. Med. Journ.,’ 1856, p. 195.—Vincent, J. P. (in horse, causing lameness), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1848, p. 674.—Walker, A. (in the liver of a sow), ‘Vet. Record,’ 1846, p. 185.—Woodger (in the brain of a horse), the ‘Veterinarian,’ 1863, p. 75.
Foreign Literature. Human Hydatids (Bibliography No. 20 p).—Böcker, ‘Zur statistik der Echinoc.,’ Berlin, 1868.—Davaine, C., ‘Traité’ (l. c., Bibl. No. 1), p. 350, 1860; 2nd edit. p. 369, 1877.—Idem, “Recherches sur les hydatides, les échinoc., &c.,” ‘Gaz. Méd. de Paris,’ 1855.—Idem, “Recherch. sur le frémissement hydatique,” ‘Gaz. Med.,’ 1862.—Eschricht, ‘Danske videnskab. selsk. forhandl.,’ 1853.—Finsen, ‘Ugeskrift for Läger,’ Bd. iii, 1867; see also ‘Brit. and For. Med.-Chir. Rev.,’ 1868, p. 324; also ‘Schmidt’s Jahrb. für Med.,’ 1867, s. 181.—Guérault, “Sur la maladie hydatique, &c.,” ‘Gaz. des Hôp.,’ 1857.—Hearn, A. W., ‘Kystes hydatiques du poumon et de la plèvre,’ Paris, 1875.—Heller, A., “Die Schmarotzer der Leber,” von Ziemssen’s ‘Handbuch d. Spec. Pathol. und Therapie,’ Bd. viii, s. 559.—Krabbe, H., “Maladie causée en Island par les Échinocoques,” in his ‘Recherches Helminthologiques,’ p. 41, Paris, 1866; ‘Helm. Undersøgelser,’ Copenhagen, 1865, p. 40.—Idem, “Die echinoc. der Islander,” ‘Archiv für Naturg.,’ 1865, and in ‘Den med. Skole i Reykjavik,’ 1868.—Idem (see T. R. Jones, Bibl. No. 2).—Leuckart, R. (l. c., Bibl. No. 1), Bd. i, s. 335, 1863; Bd. ii, s. 859, 1876.—Linder, ‘Echinococcen der Leber,’ Leipsic, 1869.—Naunyn, ‘Archiv für Anat., Physiol.,’ &c., 1862–3.—Neisser, A., ‘Die echinococcen Krankheit.,’ Berlin, 1877.—Rassmussen, ‘Bidrag til Kundskab om Echinoc.,’ &c., 1865; see also ‘Brit. and For. Med.-Chir. Rev.,’ 1866, p. 285, and 1867, p. 424.—Schmalfuss, ‘Ueber Leberechinococcus,’ Breslau, 1868.—Tommasi, T., ‘Storia di un caso di Echinoc.,’ &c., in an appendix (Nota) to his edition of my ‘Lectures’ (Vermi, &c.), Milan, 1873, p. 153.
Note.—As Leuckart, Davaine, and especially Neisser offer exhaustive analyses of the French and German literature of human hydatids, I will only give the authors’ names attached to such additional foreign memoirs and cases as have been published in England. These are quoted in my ‘Introductory Treatise on the Entozoa.’ Full references will be found in the “Bibliography” of that work under the following heads:—Andral (pulmonary veins), Angeli, Auglagnier (bladder), Baillarger (brain), Boinet (liver), Chaubasse (abdominal), Cruveilhier (liver and spleen), Dupuy (hydatids in animals), Demarquay (liver), Dupuytren (muscles and viscera, &c.), Fouquier (lungs), Gayet (liver), Goyrand (liver), Guérard, Guillot, Hedinger (brain), Heintz (liver), Held (thigh), Heller (lip), Klencke (blood, &c.), Kuhn, Lafforgue (liver), Legroux, Livois, Luschka (liver), Martinet (brain, liver), Maug (hand), Meissner, Micheá (brain), Moissenet (liver), Montault (brain), Morrisseau, Nicolai (liver), Oerstelen (kidney), Pohl (abdominal), Quinquirez (bladder), Récamier (abdominal), Richard (liver), Roget (lungs), Roux (pelvic), Rüttel (brain), Schleissner, Sichel, Sömmering (eye), Skoda, Tomowitz (bladder), Zeder (brain).
Additional references to the echinococcus disease as it occurs in animals will be found at the close of the section devoted to the parasites of Ruminants (Bibliography No. 49), and I shall recur to the subject of mortality from “worms” further on.
Trichina spiralis, Owen.—The progressive triumphs of biological science are well epitomised in the history of the discovery, and in the record of the gradual manner in which we have obtained our present complete knowledge of the structure and development of this small entozoon.
Although the facts connected with the original discovery are clear and indisputable, much error still pervades foreign literature on this head. Without a doubt Mr Hilton was the first to suggest the parasitic nature of the capsules first spoken of as “gritty particles.” With Sir James Paget, however, rests the true discovery and determination of the nematoid character of the worm itself. With Professor Owen remains the honor of having first scientifically verified, described, and named the entozoon. Some have sought, without good reason, to alter Owen’s nomenclature; yet not only the generic title, but nearly all else that he wrote concerning the parasite, must be allowed to stand.
In relation to the capsules, it is true that prior claims of discovery have been put forward; but whilst Peacock’s preparation of the “little bodies” testifies to the fact of his having seen the capsules before other English observers, including Wormald, it was Hilton who first surmised their parasitic character. As for the claims of Klencke and Tiedemann, they are practically of no value, even if it be admitted that the former may have at an early period seen something resembling this nematode, and that the “stony concretions” encountered by the latter were degenerated capsules.
On no subject have I desired to write with more accuracy and precision than on this, and lest the above remarks should appear to be somewhat partial, I now purposely re-state the facts as they have presented themselves to me during a full and prolonged study of the entire literature of the subject. If it be asked with whom rests the discovery of Trichina, the reply must be framed with a due regard to precise issue at stake. The first recognition of the capsules as parasitic products is fairly claimed by Hilton; the worm by Paget; the zoological allocation and nomenclature by Owen; the adult worm by Virchow; the developmental phenomena by Leuckart; the rearing of the larvæ by Herbst; and to crown all, the clinical importance of the parasite by Zenker. Due regard being had to these relative claims, I think the following more extended statement will be found to be true and just in all its bearings.
In the year 1834 Sir James Paget, then a student, first actually determined the existence of the nematode entozoon, which was subsequently more completely described by Professor Owen. The discoverer was assisted by the celebrated botanist, Robert Brown, who lent his microscope for the purposes of examination. In the following year Professor Owen first scientifically described and named the flesh-worm (Trichina spiralis) in the published transactions of a learned society. He first fully interpreted the true zoological position of the parasite. Sir J. Paget’s colleague, Mr. Wormald, had “more than once” previously noticed the characteristic specks “in subjects dissected at St Bartholomew’s Hospital.” He transmitted the individual specimens which enabled Owen to draw up his valuable paper. It is clear, however, that Mr Hilton was the first to suggest the parasitic and animal nature of the specks observed in human muscle. As the “find” was made in 1832, he anticipated Wormald in his observation of the “gritty” particles in dissecting-room subjects, describing the bodies as “probably depending upon the formation of very small Cysticerci.” Nevertheless, according to Dr Hodgkin, “the first observation of these little bodies was made in 1828” by Mr H. Peacock. The latter made a dry preparation of the sterno-hyoideus muscle to display the specks. That preparation is the oldest in existence, and may be seen in Guy’s Museum. It may further be remarked that Henle, Küchenmeister, Davaine, myself, and others, have pointed to a notice by Tiedemann as probably, or possibly, indicating a prior observation of the specks. Leuckart rejects the evidence. Dr Pagenstecher appears to be in doubt as to the nature of the bodies in question. As the passage in question possibly gave a rough and imperfect description of the now familiarly known calcified Trichina capsules, I give a translation of it (Froriep’s ‘Notizen,’ 1822, Bd. i, s. 64):—“At a post-mortem examination of a man who had been a great brandy-drinker, and who died from thoracic dropsy after several severe attacks of gout, Tiedemann found white stony concretions in most of the muscles, especially at the extremities. They lay in the cellular tissue between the fibre-bundles, frequently also attached to (or near) the walls of the arteries, being from two to four lines long, and roundish. The chemical examination conducted by Gmelin yielded seventy-three parts phosphate of lime, seven parts carbonate of lime and twenty parts animal matter, resembling albumen or fibrin.” In regard to this notice Dr Pagenstecher (‘Die Trichinen,’ s. 4) has remarked that Tiedemann’s “communication was also referred by Henle to such a parasitic development when he subsequently found Trichina; and in this sense it was afterwards received by Diesing, Küchenmeister, and Davaine. But it has been rejected by Leuckart on account of the size (from two to four lines) and seat of the concretions. True, it has never yet been observed that the capsuled Trichina (not measuring a tenth part of that diameter) subsequently constituted centres of gouty deposit exceeding their own bulk, nor is it likely that they should. Seeing, however, as we often do, that errors respecting size have crept into works on Trichina, we shall not need to lay much stress upon these statements; still less so since the notice is very superficial, and its character is essentially of a physiologico-chemical nature. But this, at least, seems to us decisive, that when Bischoff, at Heidelberg, wrote on a case which occurred in Heidelberg, not one single word was mentioned respecting a former case, if such should have happened, although Tiedemann and himself were on terms of close intimacy.” So much for Tiedemann. In regard to Klencke’s claims, the same observer writes:—“Klencke has asserted that he had already drawn Trichinæ in the year 1829, and that he had seen them again in 1831. This subsequent statement has no kind of confirmation. The unreliableness, mistakes, and self-deceptions in the helminthological writings of Klencke have been repeatedly exposed some twenty years ago.” Prior to this criticism by Pagenstecher, Professor von Siebold and several other well-known helminthologists had already commented on Klencke’s assertions in the same destructive manner.
In regard to the experimentation and the valuable instruction thus acquired, it appears that Herbst was the first to rear muscle-flesh-worms, or encapsuled Trichinæ, in animals (1850); whilst Virchow was probably the first to rear and recognise sexually-mature intestinal Trichinæ in a dog (‘Deutsche Klinik,’ 1859, s. 430); yet, without doing injustice to others, it must be added that it remained for Prof. Leuckart to offer a full, complete, and correct solution of the principal questions relating to the source and mode of genesis of the flesh-worm (1860). Leuckart likewise did good service by disproving the erroneous views that had been put forth by Küchenmeister. Lastly, all these brilliant results culminated in the clinical observations of Zenker, who opened out a new epoch in the history of trichinal discovery. Professor Zenker was the first to detect the young in the act of migration, and he likewise primarily demonstrated the fact that the larval parasites were capable of producing a violent disease in the human body.
Never in the history of biological science have more valuable issues followed the method of experiment upon animals. Not only has human life been thus saved, but animal life also. State-medicine and sanitation have received an immense impulse. The good that has already resulted is simply incalculable; nevertheless, in the eyes of a set of ignorant fanatics who infest this country, all experiments “involving cruelty to animals” ought to be prevented at any cost. The further progress of biological science in England has hereby sustained a severe check.
The Trichina spiralis in its sexually-mature state is an extremely minute nematode helminth, the adult male measuring only the 118th of an inch, whilst the perfectly developed female reaches a length of about 18″. The body is rounded and filiform, usually slightly bent upon itself, and rather thicker behind than in front, especially in the males. The head is narrow, finely pointed, unarmed, with a simple, central, minute oral aperture. The posterior extremity of the male is furnished with a bilobed caudal appendage, its cloacal or anal aperture being situated between these divergent appendages. The penis consists of a single spicule, cleft above, so as to assume a V-shaped outline. The female is stouter than the male, bluntly rounded posteriorly, having the genital outlet placed far forward, at about the end of the first fifth of the long diameter of the body. The eggs measure 11270″ from pole to pole. The mode of reproduction is viviparous.