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