From the Proceedings of the Boston Socie,bysots{£ayiral Httyfory, 
Vol. xx, November 27,1878. 
On Larvae of Insects Discharged the Urethra. 
By Dr. H. A. IIagen. 
The larva of an insect which had been discharged through the 
uretha by a country boy, was sent by Dr. Cutler of Waltham, Mass., 
to Mr. S. Henshaw, and kindly communicated to me for investigation. 
The larva is somewhat squeezed and flattened, but otherwise in good 
condition and belongs to the Dipterous genus Homalomyia. In com- 
paring the larva with the larvae of Diptera in the biological collection 
of the Museum in Cambridge (which contains now 380 species of 
Diptera, more or less fully illustrated) I found two lots of the same 
kind. One is labeled from putrifying fish, the other, as found in a 
bottle containing rotten alcoholic fishes. In looking through the 
American literature I found one paper of the late B. D. Walsh, 
“larvae in the human bowels” (Amer. Entomol., n, 137) seem- 
ing to treat of similar larvae. The description and the figure make it 
nearly doubtless that the larva from Waltham is identical with the 
Homalomyia Wilsoni Walsh. There is only one difference : the 
larva of H. Wilsoni has on the third segment on each side only one fil- 
ament, while mine has on each side a pair of filaments just as in the 
following segments. But as all larvae of Homalomyia, as far as I know, Hagen.] 
108 
[November 27, 
and at least air I have seen, and all figured and described in Europe, 
possess a pair of filaments on each side of the third segment, I am 
inclined to believe that the second filament was overlooked by Mr. 
Walsh. This is the more probable as it is considerably smaller than 
the other one; and as the lens used by Mr. Walsh was an exceedingly 
poor one. 
Among the European species the larva of H. scalaris, well- 
known and often figured, is very similar, except that the filaments in 
the American species seem to be more feather-branched. But as I 
have only a few specimens of the European species before me and 
the existence of H. scalaris in America is proved by specimens in 
Prof. Loew’s collection, the identity of the two species is very prob- 
able. Nevertheless the larvae of all related species are very much 
alike, and only by the study of a material with raised imagos can a 
sufficient surety be reached. As by far the largest part of the An- 
thomyidae of the collection is still in the hands of Baron von Osten 
Sacken in Europe, I am not able to give a satisfactory record of the 
species of Homalomyia belonging to our fauna. 
“ The cases which I have to relate (begins the well-known Dr. 
Bateman in his account of the larvae of two species of insects discharged 
from the human body) do not possess any practical importance, and 
the only degree of interest that may be attached to them, must be 
derived from the uncertainty of medical records on the subject in 
question. This uncertainty induces me to bring them forward. For 
whether we consider, on the one hand, the difficulty of accounting 
for the origin of many of those animals, which make their nidus in 
the human body, or the variety of indistinct and fabulous histories 
of such animals which have been detailed on the other, every in- 
stance of the existence of those which are not usually found there, 
but the species of which can be ascertained, and therefore the prob- 
able origin pointed out, seems to be worthy of being recorded.” 
These words are to-day just as true as seventy years ago, for really 
not much has been done to elucidate the origin of similar cases, 
except that the occurrence is more or less fully stated in medical 
periodicals. 
Rev. F. Hope published forty years ago a list of one hundred 
and eight cases, which he found recorded by different authors. Of 
them thirty-five belong to Coleoptera, two to Dermaptera, six to 
Lepidoptera, one to Neuroptera, sixty-four to Diptera. Among the 
Coleoptera the meal-worm, Tenebrio molitor, is recorded in nine 1878.] 
109 
[Hagen, 
cases; of the Diptera thirty-seven cases belong to the Muse id ae and 
twenty to (Estridae. The composition of the list must have been 
very difficult; nevertheless it is far from representing all published 
cases, and sometimes not thoroughly reliable. Concerning the locality 
affected thirty-six cases belong to the stomach and the intestines, 
and seven to the urinary organs. 
The sex of the patients is given in seventy-one cases, thirty-three 
men, and thirty-eight women. It is of interest to state that the cases 
in which Coleoptera are observed show twenty-one women against only 
four men; the cases in which Diptera are observed, twenty-nine men 
against seventeen women. But it should be remarked that the 
Dipterous cases included fifteen belonging to Oestrus, of which four- 
teen belong to men, who are obviously more exposed to attacks by 
those flies. Deducting those cases, we find both sexes equally often 
infested by Diptera. I have tried to bring together all known cases 
in which larvae or perfect insects are recorded to have been dis- 
charged through the urethra, and give a list of twenty, only three of 
them published later than Hope’s list, in which therefore ten were 
not included. The sex is recorded for fifteen cases, nine men and 
six women. The discharged animals show nine Diptera, six Cole- 
optera, two Oniscus, and a larva without nearer indication. Of the 
Diptera four belong to Homalomyia, one to Tipula, one to Eristalis; of 
the Coleoptera three to Tenebrio molitor, one to Ptinus fur, the only 
imago of an insect recorded, and two to a larva similar to Curculio 
nucum (!). 
The value and reliability of the mentioned cases are far from being 
equal. In the appended literature, I have stated the particular 
reasons, which lead me to accept only sixteen of them, and consider 
only four of these as of much value. Unless it is supposed that mis- 
takes in such observations have not been very generally committed, 
we are obliged to believe that the discharged larvae have really been 
in the bladder, though this organ is the least probable abode for the 
larvae of winged insects. Farther, as of course the only open way to 
the bladder is the urethra, the observed animals must have entered 
through it. There are indeed true intestinal worms belonging to the 
genus Strongylus, which, originating in the kidneys, thence enter the 
bladder, but it is equally obvious that these roads are impassable for 
larvae living in the bowels. To those unacquainted with the study of 
medicine it will seem incredible that things should be put purposely 
into the human body; but there are cases reported in medical litera- Hagen.] 
110 
[November 27, 
ture, which surpass all belief. The article “ corpora aliena iu corpore 
humano” in Rust’s Surgical Archives, written by the celebrated Dr. 
Dieffenbach, gives a large number of the most incredible and never- 
theless carefully observed cases. 
Concerning the urinary organs, we find in a table drawn up by Pro- 
fessor Civiale of Paris (Gazette des Hopitaux, 1838), a collection of 
one hundred and sixty-six cases of foreign bodies in the bladder, in 
which the following articles were removed from it; twenty-five 
needles and pins, one bodkin, two ear pickers, six fragments of 
bones, five teeth, eighteen sounds or bougies flexible and rigid, twelve 
pieces of wood, six needle cases, one cork, thirteen plant stems, ears 
of wheat and straws, nine pieces of lint, six pipe-stems, three glass 
tubes, various kinds of fruits, feathers and hair. Since that time up 
to 1861, he has extracted nineteen sounds or bougies, a leather strap, 
two pen-holders, an artist’s brush handle, two pieces of bone, a piece 
of tendon, a lamp wick, a barometer tube, and a medal. 
If it is therefore proved that persons in some morbid disposition are 
themselves apt to put foreign bodies in the bladder, we are allowed to 
conclude that at least some of the insect cases belong to this category; 
though no insect or insect larva is mentioned among the bodies re- 
moved from the bladder. That an intentional deception has some- 
times occurred, is a well-known fact, but other cases are beyond this 
suspicion, and therefore it is fair to suppose that unpremeditated 
mistakes have been made in observation. Cases in which such mis- 
takes were developed are recorded, — one by Linnaeus himself. His 
student Rolander, suffering from dysentery, was believed to have dis- 
charged a large number of living Acari, but Linnaeus discovered that 
the wooden drinking cups in the room were swarming with these in- 
sects as well as the one used. Siebold speaks of a similar case in which 
living specimens of Ptinus fur were believed to have been discharged, 
while later it was discovered that the leather cushion of the stool was 
infested with the living beetles. The view that the discharged larvae 
may have already been in the not thoroughly cleaned vessels, or that 
they afterwards fell in by chance, perhaps from the cover, is adopted 
as probable by LeClerc, Rudolphi, Bremser and others. This is 
doubtless the fact in the cases recorded of Oniscus and the Eristalis 
larva, and Dr. Bateman recalls judiciously, that the recorded 
larvae of Muscidae may have been generated in or near the 
water closet, as they often live in such places. If we adopt this ex- 
planation for another set of cases, there still remain some in 1878.] 
111 
[Hagen, 
which, during or after a severe disease of the bladder and the 
urinary passages, the discharge of some animals gave instantaneous 
relief, and cure followed. I should have believed these cases more im- 
portant, if exactly similar ones of instantaneous relief after a dis- 
charge of larvae from the bowels had not been observed, the larvae 
(Homalomyia) being just the same as those often recorded as dis- 
charged from the bladder. Dr. Howship in his tract (Observations 
on the diseases of the urinary organs, London, 1816), has published 
very striking cases of this class. 
Last not least, it is important to notice that all the observed cases 
belong to men, none to animals, and that in the numerous dissections 
which have been made the presence of larvae in these organs has 
never been stated, and that as far as I know, no museum possesses 
such larvae, professed to have been found in the bladder. 
There are certain limits, which can not be transgressed without be- 
coming absurdly credulous, in believing facts, which are said to have 
been observed. The bold manner in which Linnaeus has purified 
natural history by throwing out such facts, is certainly one of his 
greatest merits and has greatly advanced natural history. That he 
has gone sometimes too far, and that some of the rejected facts have 
later proved true, is comparatively without consequence. I confess, 
that I do not believe that larvae of insects can live in the bladder, and 
that consequently they are not discharged through the urethra — till 
the contrary is proved by indubitable evidence. 
The excellent and well-known works of C. A. Rudolphi and J. G. 
Bremser, contain the literature up to 1819. Nevertheless as the aim 
of both authors is to give a history of the true intestinal worms, all 
others which belong to the so called Pseudohelminthes are treated 
only as a side matter. There exist some works, in which the older 
literature is said to be largely collected. 
«J. Schenck von Grafenberg, Observat. medicar. rarior. Libr. vii., 
Francofurti, 1600, (and later Edit.),— Marcellus Donatus, De medica 
liistoria mirabili. Libr. vi. Yenetiis, 1597. 4to.—P. Borel'li, Histor. 
te observat. medicophysicarum Cent. iv. Francofurti, 1670, 8° and 
Cent, i, 1676. — Hercules Saxonia. (title of the work unknown to 
me) — and W. G. Ploucquet, Initia Bibliothecae medico-practicae et 
Chirurgicae realis. Tuebingae, 1793-97. 4°. I am not sorry that I 
am unable to compare these works; perhaps there is no copy of them 
here, as Rudolphi designates them simply as a kind of stuff, of which 
very little is worthy to be studied, and Bateman, Edinb. med. Hagen.] 
112 
[November 27, 
Journ. vn, 47, speaks of the very questionable authority of those 
authors whose credulity is at least equal to their learning and in- 
dustry. 
LIST OF CASES IN WHICH INSECTS ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED 
THROUGH THE URETHRA. 
No. 1. Ambr. Pare. CEuvres. 1582. fob reimpr. Paris, 1841, in, 35. 
The celebrated father of surgery says L. Duretus is affirmed to 
have discharged after a long sickness a living animal through the 
urethra similar to an Oniscus, of red color. LeClerc says similar to 
a Hog or Wood Louse. A second case reported by Pare is entirely 
fabulous. I have not seen the figure of Pare, which is omitted in 
the reprint as being very bad.1 
No. 2. Nic. Tulpii, Observationum medicarum Libr. in. Amstel- 
odamii, 1641. 8vo. Lib. II, cap. L, p. 178. Undeviginti vermiculi 
emicti. Tab. vii. f. 2. A prominent physician in Amsterdam, 
convalescent after an intermittent fever, discharged in one week 
through the urethra without pain twenty-one larv®. The figure is 
not good, but perfectly recognizable as a larva of Homalomyia, 
probably H. scalaris. In the description the tail is taken to be the 
head. Tulpius says that this larva is very similar to those dis- 
charged by Lud. Duretus. 
No. 3. Lib. II, cap. u, p. 179. Cottidianus vermium mictus. 
Tab. vn, f. 3. A lady fifty years old discharged at the end of a 
sickness on several days five or six small worms, two of them large, 
of the size of the joint of a finger. The figure shows probably the 
meal worm, the larva of Tenebrio molitor. The medical prescription 
to prevent a farther propagation of the worms is carefully noted 
down, and consists of three medicines containing together a whole 
pound of twenty different drugs. No wonder that the worms could 
not stand so uncivil a reception, almost equal to an attack with 
Krupp guns! 
No. 4. G. C. Gahrliep von der Muehlen, Ephemerid. Acad. 
Natur. Curios., 1694, Dec. ill, Ann. i, Observ. 82, p.126-127, fig. 
An old gentleman after a chronic inflammation of the bladder dis- 
charged a few days before his death, through the urethra, a fatty ball 
containing a larva similar to those of Microlepidoptera, pale flesh- 
colored, with six legs, very active. The larva lived twelve days, and 
was then accidentally killed by closing the box in which it was 
preserved. The description of the case is somewhat odd, the figure 
1 While my paper has been passing through press, I have been able to examine- 
two old original editions with the figures, which are not recognizable. 1878.] 
113 
[Hagen 
bad, and not recognizable, as the larva shows large eyes, four pairs of 
legs along the body and a forked tail. However it represents the 
larva of an insect. 
No. 5. M. F. Lochner. Disquisitio de vermibus cum u.ina 
excretis. s. 1. et a. 4°. fig. 4. This work, quoted from Boehmer’s 
bibliography, is not known to me, nor to Rudolphi. Lochner was a 
physician in Nuremberg in 1690. I cannot find what Boehmer has 
copied from; perhaps the citation is one of the many blunders in 
Boehmer’s work. 
No. 6. Dan. Clerici (LeClerc). Historia naturalis et medicalatorum 
lumbricorum etc. Genevae, 1715. 4°. Engl, transl., 1721. 8°. I have 
seen only the translation. lie gives, p. 264, a very reasonable ac- 
count of worms excreted with the urine; he quotes some cases re- 
lated by older authors, and inclines to believe them to be untrust- 
worthy. The pi. XIII (crinous hairworms, such as are excreted with 
the urine), taken from Etmueller, Ruysch and Leeuwenhoek is want- 
ing in the copy. 
Fr. Ruyschii Thesaurus anatomicus. Amstelod., 1721. 4°. I, 
32. A nobleman after a strong pain in the perinaeum dis- 
charged with the urine a large number of small bodies somewhat 
ovoid in shape and like grains, out of which developed small flies, 
figured pi. 3, fig. 5. It is stated in the same place, that he had seen 
similar ones in the urine of a woman, and he believes that the larvae 
had entered the bladder from outside through the urethra. The 
figure is bad, but shows the chrysalis of a fly and the fly itself. As 
there is an older edition from 1701 (Hope quotes i, 54) perhaps 
the case related by LeClerc is the same. 
No. 7. Dan. Tui’ner. Philosoph. Transact., 1725, xxxiii, 410. 
Two cases of insects voided by the urinary passage. The first case 
belongs to the intestinal worms (Strongylus), the second quotes an 
animal, probably an Oniscus, discharged by a lady. The short de- 
scription is very insufficient. Rudolphi says, probably the larva of an 
insect. 
No. 8. Dr. Werlhof. Commerc. litt. Nor. 1735, 282. Vermis, 
cum urina excretus. I have not seen this paper, but Rudolphi states 
that the worm is the larva of an insect. 
No. 9. Mr. Veau de Lauriay, in Rozier Observ. de physique, 1792, 
xxxi, 158. Observations sur des vers rendus avec l’urine. pi. 1, 
fig 4. Rudolphi says the animal is Oniscus asellus. In the only copy Hagen.] 
114 
[November 27, 
here the plate is wanting. The description seems to me to designate 
the larva of Ilomalomyia. The sex of the patient is not given. 
No. 10. Dr. Stringham, Professor in Columbia College. New 
York Medical Repository, 1805, vi, 262, and vn, 342. Reports the 
case of a lady whose sufferings were relieved and cured after the 
passage of a great number of nondescript insects, which he considers 
to belong to the genus Actinia. The very rough figures resemble an 
Oniscus. 
No. 11. V. L. Brera. Memorie fisico-mediclie sopra i principali 
vermi del corpo umano, etc. Crema, 1811. 4°. p. 106, pi. 1, f. 26-27. A 
new species of the genus Cercosoma had been discharged with 
the urine by a lady. Prof. Canali in Perugia, dissected and de- 
scribed it in Giornale letterario di Pisa. The unique type came in 
the collection of Brera and was described and figured. Bremser, p. 
264, states that this worm is the well-known larva of Eristalis 
pendulus, and gives a copy of the figure on the title page. The proof 
that the larva, which was found in the chamber vessel, had been 
really discharged by the lady, is wanting. Bremser’s remarks about 
this history are rather sarcastic. If all, he says, found in the cham- 
ber vessel must be considered as discharged, I have discharged in a 
sickness a pair of candle snuffers, which was found in the vessel, and 
which nobody would admit to have thrown into it. 
J. G. Bremser. Ueber lebende Wuermer im lebenden Menschen. 
Wien, 1819. 4°. In this well-known and prominent work, chap, xn 
gives in an appendix the so-called Pseudolielminthes found in the 
human body but not belonging to the intestinal worms. The figures 
are given on the title page. In the same way (Brems., p. 261), Brera 
in his before quoted work, Part n, has treated the insects found in 
men as Vermi metastatici. Dr. Bremser’s critical remarks for some 
species are very important. 
C. A. Rudolphi Entozoorum sive vermium intestinalium historia 
naturalis. Amstelod., 1808-10. 8°. 2 vol. In the bibliographical part 
of this celebrated work, I, 164, the published cases on larvae voided 
through natural passages of the human body are enumerated with 
short critical remarks. In chap. XXII, De insectis animalium 
parasiticis, p. 524, he gives his opinion about the cases in which it is 
professed that larvae were discharged through the urethra. 
“ Qui in vesicam urinariam veniant, me fugit, casusque plurimos, 
ni omnes, in quibus insectorum larvae in urina repertae dicuntur, ad 
praestigias referem. Larvae aliaque insecta lotio misso facile illabi 115 
1878.] 
[Hagen. 
possunt, inde etiam omnium saepissime, Oniscus asellus in eodem 
repertus est, quem medici nonnunquam pro verme aut insecti larva 
habuerant; matula forsan impura adhibita fuit, aut alius bine inde 
error locum habuit.” 
No. 12. William Henry, M. D. Edinburgh Medical and Surgical 
Journal, 1811, vn, 147. Case in which the larvae of an insect were 
voided in the urine. A robust man aged about 62, frequently void- 
ing gravel and once discharging a small calculus, complained of a 
stabbing pain about the neck of the bladder. Later he voided along 
with his urine the larvae of an insect, pretty closely resembling the 
common maggot. They were not only alive but vivacious, and besides 
those which were entire, the heads and bodies might be observed, de- 
tached from each other. Of the entire insects, he has frequently dis- 
charged three or four at once. Mr. J. L. Philips of Manchester ex- 
amined the larvae and found them to be coleopterous and much like 
Curculio nucum. Three of the larvae are figured of natural size and 
magnified ; they are coleopterous. 
In a note it is stated, that Dr. Monro, Jr., has met with a case 
precisely similar, and possesses specimens of the larvae in lus 
museum. 
No. 13. T. Bateman, M. D. Edinburgh Med. Surg. Journal, 1811, 
vii, 41, pi. An account of the larvae of two species of insects 
discharged from the human body. The larvae figured are two 
Tenebrio molitor, two Homalomyici scalaris, and a third perhaps 
of the same species. The larvae were discharged from the bowels, 
but Dr. Bateman quotes in his excellent paper also the cases pub- 
lished of larvae discharged from the bladder and concludes, “ it must 
be acknowledged that the bladder is the least probable nidus for the 
larvae of winged insects.” 
No. 14. Leroux. Journal de Med. Chir., Paris, 1806. A man 
suffering with nephralgia discharged with the urine larvae, which 
from the description belonged probably to Diptera. I was unable to 
compare this paper; it is quoted in E. F. Germar, Magaz. d. Entom., 
1818, hi, 418. A case is quoted in the same place from Howship, 
Tract, observ., on the disease of the urinary organs, London, 1816, 
8°, treating of larvae discharged from the bowels. In Germar’s Mag- 
azin, i, 134, the case published by Mr. W. Henry is briefly referred 
o tafter a notice in Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen, Novbr. 7, 1812, p. 
1779. The same article is again reprinted by J. Gistel in Bayerische 
National Zeit., 1836, no. 199, p. 826. Hagen ] 
116 
[November 'll, 
No. 15. Kirby and Spence. Introduction to Entomology, I, 239. 
(Peoples edit., p. 74.) A larva belonging to the Diptera, perhaps to 
the Tipulida;, with which however it do :s not so entirely agree as to 
take away all doubt, was passed by a person (sex not given) in 
Ipswich with the urine. It was alive and extremely active. The 
larva is carefully described. 
No. 16. Jer. Van Rensselaer, M.D. Silliman’s Journ., 1828, 
xiii, 229. On a larva liberated with urine. The larva was dis- 
charged by a girl, and is, according to the short description, a 
coleopterous larva, probably that of Tenebrio molitor. 
Rev. L. Jenyns. Trans. Entom. Soc., Lond., 1839, n, 152, pi. xv, f. 
1-8. Notice of a case in which the larvae of a dipterous insect, 
supposed to be Anlliomyia canicularis, were expelled in large quan- 
tities from the human intestines. The larvae, according to the figure 
and the description, belong probably to Homalomyia scalaris, and were 
discharged by an old clergyman in enormous numbers from the 
bowels. One passage in the paper induced me to suppose that some- 
times the larvae were also discharged through the urethra, and for 
this reason the paper is quoted. However the fact is not stated in an 
unquestionable manner. 
No. 17. Dr. Erismann. London Medical Gazette, 1837, xx, 
846, (recorded after Schmidt's Jahrb. du Med. and Schweizer, 
Zeitsch., ii, 1.) A robust young man was attacked suddenly by 
symptoms of the most acute inflammation of the bladder. After 
suffering intensely for five days, he found himself unable to pass his 
water, and this evidently from some mechanical obstruction in the 
urethra. Before a catheter could be introduced, he discharged a 
body of the size of a pea covered by purulent matter, which was 
found to contain a little beetle, Ptinus fur, which died directly on the 
exposure to the atmosphere. 
The communication resembles those previously quoted from 
Gahrliep, and the final passage endangers even more the trustworth- 
iness of the case. 
No. 18. Dr. Schrader in Rust’s Magaz., 1824, xix, 487 and 
1826, xxi, 26, describes the larva of a fly discharged with the urine 
as a snail. I have not seen the paper, which is related and corrected 
in Siebold’s article on Pseudoparasites. 
Rev. F. W. Hope. Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond., 1840, n, 256. On the 
insects and their larvae occasionally found in the human body. The 
tables were printed first in the London Med. Gazette, 1837, xx, April 1878.] 
117 
[Hagen. 
15, p. 94-95; April 22, p. 142-143; April 29, p. 172; May 6, p. 406- 
207; May 13, p. 255; May 20, p. 286-287, and are reprinted in the 
Tr. Ent. Soc., with the addition of three columns : Station in life, 
Date of occurrence, Specimens preserved. Rev. Mr. Hope in some ad- 
ditional remarks proposes that the name Scholechiasis used by Kirby 
and Spence for all diseases occasioned by the larvae of insects, should 
be retained only for those arising from Lepidopterous larvae. The 
disease by coleopterous larvae he calls Canthariasis, and those by 
dipterous larvae, Myasis. On pi. xxn, f. 2-5, are represented various 
larvae from the human body contained in the musem of the College 
of Surgeons; fig. 2 is a worm, or at least no insect, f. 3, 4 are larvae 
of Homalomyia, f. 5 is Oestrus hominis. 
The paper is important as the only list in existence and quotes 108 
cases; seven of which belong to the urinary passages. The quotations 
in the paper are rather lax and not over correct. Dr. Koch in 
Ammon’s Monatsschrift f. Medicin., 1838, r, 542, has given also a 
list of the larvm observed in the intestines of men. 
No. 19. R. Owen. Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond., 1840. Proc. p. 7, 
April 6. Report of a dipterous larva, distinct from Anthomyia and 
wanting the lateral filaments, several of which had been discharged 
from the urinary bladder of a patient. 
Th. v. Siebold, in R. Wagner, Handworterbuch d. Phvsiologie, 
1844, ii, 683, gives in his excellent article, Parasites, a chapter 
on Pseudoparasites. He speaks at some length on insects discharged 
from the bladder, and is strongly inclined to disbelieve the trust- 
worthiness of the published cases. Prof. v. Siebold remarks, p. 688, 
that he possesses a larva of Clerus formicarius, communicated to him 
as an urine-worm, hut it doubtless fell in the vessel by some chance. 
No. 20. Dr. Cutler of Wateitown, Mass. A larva of Homa- 
lomyia discharged with the urine by a country boy. 
I by no means pretend that the list of authors enumerated by me 
presents a full record of all published cases, but I have gone 
through a large number of books and periodicals without finding 
more. Nevertheless a careful perusal of medical journals will doubt- 
less furnish other published cases. 
In four of the twenty recorded cases I was unable to examine the 
works myself. The value and trustworthiness of all the cases are very 
far from being equal. The two with Oniscus (Turner and String- 
ham) and the one with Eristalis (Brera), the case by Lochner of 
which nothing is known should be at once discarded. But even of Hagen.] 
118 
[November 27, 
the sixteen cases left one gives nothing more than assertion that 
the author observed cases similar to described ones. Werlhof is 
only accepted on Rudolphi’s authority. Concerning the remaining 
ones only four (Tulpius, Ruysoh, Gahrliep, Erisman) seem to be in 
so far less doubtful, as the animals were probably discharged in the 
presence of the physician. In Tulpius’ case the patient and the 
recorder were both prominent physicians. In all other cases the 
patients only affirm that they have discharged the described animals. 
Note. Since the above paper was read, Dr. Cutler has written 
to Mr. Henshaw, that the boy, induced by what Dr. Cutler had told 
him, examined the privy carefully and found several specimens similar 
to the one which he was supposed to have passed, and therefore 
thinks he may have been deceived in the matter.