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.