2013/04/01 by Frank N. Egerton · 1 citation
Environmental Science · Agricultural and Biological Sciences · #American Environmental and Regional History #Plant and animal studies #Environmental Philosophy and Ethics #Germ theory of disease #Biology #Parasitology #Entomology #Zoology #Environmental ethics #Ecology #Classics #History #Philosophy
paper · pdf · doi:10.1890/0012-9623-94.2.136
openalex publication_date 2013/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Click here for all previous articles in the History of the Ecological Sciences series by F. N. Egerton Progress in parasitology and microbiology during the 1800s is one of the great triumphs of science. The consequences for humanity and domestic animals have been momentous, yet this story is not widely known in any detail. It is a story that was built upon achievements of the 1700s (Egerton 2008a, b) and parallels progress in phytopathology during the 1800s (Egerton 2012). In retrospect, it might seem like a rather small step from the accumulated evidence about plant and animal parasites during the 1700s to the establishment of germ theory in the 1870s–1880s. But that illusion is only plausible when one forgets that there are vitamin-deficiency diseases, scurvy, beriberi, goiter; genetic diseases, diabetes; and optically invisible viral diseases, small pox, yellow fever, which defenders of a germ theory could not explain to skeptics during the 1800s (Carter 1977, 1980). Disease causation was a very contested terrain, and Casimir Davaine seems to be the only investigator who contributed significantly to both parasitology and bacteriology. The discoveries within parasitology and microbiology during the 1800s came too thick and fast to be comprehensively surveyed here. This part surveys the high points and is divided into three sections: parasitology, microbiology, and the discovery of arthropod vector-transmission of disease. Discoveries in vector transmission were aided by the great progress made during the 1800s in entomology (Egerton 2013). We saw in part 44 (Egerton 2012:309–311; also Théodoridès 1966:195–196) that Italian Agostino Bassi (1773–1856) in 1835 first demonstrated an animal disease (of silkworms) caused by a parasite (a fungus), and in the early 1840s, immigrants to Paris, David Gruby (1810–1898) and to Berlin, Robert Remak (1815–1865), published on fungal diseases on human skin. French physician and biologist Charles-Phillipe Robin (1821–1885), who joined the Faculty of Medicine in Paris (Grmek 1975), published an important synthesis, Des végétaux qui croissant sur l'homme et sur les animaux vivants (1847), which he re-titled in a much-enlarged second edition, Histoire naturelle des Végétaux parasites (1853). Considering how relatively unimportant fungal parasites on animals are, it seems curious that this subject achieved such early prominence in parasitology during the 1800s. Although silkworm muscardine was fatal, most of the other fungal diseases of animals were not. (a) Karl Asmund Rudolphi. Humboldt University Library. (b) Japetus Smith Steenstrup. Early advances concerning animal parasites came in helminthology, the study of worms. Karl Asmund Rudolphi (1771–1832), considered the father of parasitology, was son of a Stockholm school teacher, studied medicine at Greifswald, where he wrote a dissertation on intestinal worms (1794). He completed a course at the Berlin Veterinary School (1801) and taught at Greifswald until 1810, when he accepted the chair of anatomy and physiology at the new University of Berlin (Foster 1965:17–19, Théodoridès 1966a:199, Kruta 1975, Penso 1981:255–256, Grove 1990:8–10, 816, et passim). His Entozoorum, sive vermium intestinalium (two volumes, 1808–1810) synthesized the knowledge on internal parasites, describing 457 species, with 629 references in a bibliography of 172 pages (Foster 1965:18). His Entozoorum synopsis (1819) described 552 distinct species and 441 names of what he considered dubious species. He thought parasites were “generated by disease in the body of the host” (Kruta 1975:592). He dedicated Entozoorum synopsis to Viennese museum curator Johann Gottfried Bremser (1767–1827), who also in 1819 published Ueber lebende Würmer im lebenden Menschen, with color plates superior to Rudolphi's black-and-white ones (Foster 1965:19, Farley 1972a:108–110, Grove 1990:9–10). (a) Félix Dujardin. Huard and Théodoridès 1959:74. (b) Casimir Joseph Davaine. Foster 1965: Plate 5. (c) Joseph Leidy. Reinhard 1958: Fig. 2. Japetus Steenstrup (1813–1897), from northern Jutland, taught school until he published two scientific works in 1842 that brought him fame and appointment as professor of zoology at the University of Copenhagen (Müller 1976). One work, a lengthy paper, discussed what one could learn from layers of dead vegetation in peat bogs, and became a foundation for paleoecology (Egerton 2009:49–52). The other was a book on the alternation of sexual and asexual generations in some invertebrate species, “one of the most illuminating generalizations in the history of biology” (Reinhard 1957:216–220, Foster 1965:20–23 + plate VI; Farley 1972a:117–119, 1977:58–60, Grove 1990:44–45). Alternating generations had previously been discovered in jellyfish, which he verified in Scyphistoma-strobila (Steenstrup 1845:11–25). Steenstrup also studied this phenomenon in free-living claviform polypes (Coryne) and salpae (Proles) (1845:26–51), and in three species of parasitic trematodes, including the liver fluke of sheep (1845:52–93, partly reprinted in Kean et al. 1978:11–13). He demonstrated what had been previously suspected, that an alternate generation of the fluke lives in snails. His book had three plates with many figures, explained in great detail. Steenstrup, son of a vicar, corresponded with Darwin, but never accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. Félix Dujardin (1801–1860), from Tours, had broad scientific interests, and turned to parasitology in 1837–1851 (Huard and Théodoridès 1959b, Foster 1965:23–24, 40, 113, Théodoridès 1966a:197, 199, Geison 1971, Grove 1990:10, 796, et passim). His Histoire naturelle des Infusoires (1841, 700 pages, 22 plates) was a major contribution to protozoology. He studied a variety of parasites, making important discoveries which were mostly synthesized in his Histoire naturelle des Helminthes ou vers intestinaux (1845, 650 pages, 12 plates), which was the beginning of nematology, the study of a particular group of worms parasitic on both plants (Raski 1959:386, Egerton 2012) and animals. (Nonparasitic nematodes in soil apparently consume bacteria.) Casimir Joseph Davaine (1812–1882), from St.-Amand-les-Eaux, conducted biological research while practicing medicine in Paris (Foster 1965:24, 46, Théodoridès 1966a:196, 201, 1968:196, 201, 1971, Grove 1990:13–14, 794, et passim). He made important contributions to both parasitology (example in English translation: Kean et al. 1978:349–350) and bacteriology (see below). He summarized his parasitology in Traité des entozoaires et des maladies vermineuses de l'homme et des animaux (1860, edition 2, 1877, partial English translation, 1863). Davaine also contributed to phytopathology, as another founder of nematology (Egerton 2012:320). Many worthy investigators described the life histories of multicellular parasites throughout the rest of the 1800s (see literature guide, below). However, dissecting the bodies of victims of parasites was insufficient for revealing the life cycles of many parasites having more than one kind of host. Experimental parasitology had begun in the later 1700s (Egerton 2008:424–425), but had not become standard practice. Parasitologist Ernst Friedrich Gustav Herbst (1803–1893), at the University of Gottingen, somewhat accidentally revived the practice in 1850 (Reinhard 1958:113–114, Foster 1965:72–73, Grove 1990:578–579). He dissected cats and dogs, searching for spiral fleshworms, Trichina (now, Trichinella) spiralis and afterwards fed the flesh to a caged badger. When the badger died, he dissected it also and found many Trichina in its muscles, which gave him the idea of feeding the badger's remains to puppies. Months later he dissected them and found Trichina in their muscles (Herbst 1851). James Paget (1814–1894), a London medical student in 1835, saw specks in the muscle of his cadaver and wanted to examine them under a microscope (Reinhard 1958:109–111, Foster 1965:69, Grove 1990:572–575, 813, Peterson 2004). Since St. Bartholomew's Hospital lacked one (!), he went to the head of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, who also lacked one, but advised that the Museum botanist, Robert Brown, had one. With Brown's microscope Paget discovered that each speck contained a spiral worm, which he sketched, and then gave an oral report to the medical students' Abernethian Society. London anatomist Richard and described it Paget as et 2004). In Joseph specks in he was that of Trichina which he had in human Foster Grove and this discovery to the of The British and of Natural History and the to discovery (Reinhard However, Viennese Karl et and that Trichina be a species than it came from a which he in his 2, 1851). Since feeding badger remains to (see was also published in not have a to learn from physician Friedrich who had discovered that were Reinhard Foster Grove in his of human parasites (two volumes, that Trichina spiralis was an of the intestinal he also that Trichina might be spiralis and not (Reinhard this by zoology professor in fed muscle to and three later he found worms in the (Foster et Théodoridès Grove et passim). However, he in his in which he fed muscle to a then its In the he found about a which he were Trichina spiralis (Reinhard In Berlin medical professor Grove muscle with from an and fed the muscle to a by a the died, and found Trichina some and This both and and that Trichina spiralis from (Reinhard came from professor of Friedrich who in from one Trichina in muscle and free-living in the He about the of and that the had an found the who had the and for the and some of which was with had his and had all the of the the in human which had (Reinhard then that all be and a on this in Berlin in a and that were physician the to some of the and later became (Reinhard first was Paget but a of the medical school in (Foster et Kean et Grove et In he to and in he became professor of and at the Veterinary His an to the of was it from His a on the of and including of the not a new edition of his book but an new with a (Foster had discovered in (Egerton but had not them to disease. We saw in part 44 (Egerton that two David Gruby and Robert fungal diseases of in the early had the by another of and Friedrich He in his that diseases are caused by but he had that it was yet to His some on Robert in his (Carter (a) (b) Friedrich Reinhard 1958: Fig. (c) Karl Reinhard Fig. (a) in his (b) in with of (a) (b) Robert on about (c) in 2. of Foster 1965: Plate in that in one aided by medical had a from than in another in which were aided by He that the medical were from dissected to the and when the their in the He thought from dissected caused the disease (Carter He that and in 1850 he was first to that had only one in His des in including to their on of (Carter published his on the a of small which all the of and The that had in the of sheep were like the in and was to and this kind of of the as which when in the of the animal not as a Davaine two and a with from a sheep that had of and all in two three He then another with from a that had died, and it He described the and that it caused the disease. from with contained the He was to the disease to medical in Paris but his to them the des Sciences to him a in In by the and in Davaine to had apparently the generation in Egerton but revived the in a by his ou de studied medicine in Paris, then to He had published two previous on sexual generation in He for the of a that seems of and (Egerton about which in his His new was that life as Farley and Geison had by that life was with by not of and Farley and Geison Geison He the His of that the was not as but a of of and other This research his that life not and Geison the he conducted to that invisible had that a and in a of but his the to that the it could be to with and of His he his in a then the and it into a that but including in the from the des Sciences an for his When the another that also Although wanted to Darwin's theory of the and Geison and to the great of which is the for the of life on the of the the of at The to the and to the of the that plants have from them is to the and the of to the the the and which life the and the that be by the the are to the of for of dead is one of the for the of that research on microbiology, which became the of his In accepted an to study a silkworm which to and to learn about discoveries on fungal muscardine of (Egerton 2012) during the not for and in the of to a silkworm His not a he was to that a parasite caused Geison of the was that there was also another that had to be from rather than considered a of diseases in then accepted their and for silkworm to it was that was a and a disease. The to study of could Geison He his from to The in Joseph was the of who 1977, 2004). His for from a to in on generation and which to as an He also but was more than had was in son of a and to the University of but not to a there he was He his in at in from the University of He to by at first by his He became an professor at the in and in the of him with a new of plant physiology In he and he his research to He to bacteriology for His Ueber lebenden English was the first to including his species into that are most He that were for the of dead their to be by new that that be by high but not by are species. the the of is The species during generations of and which the to to fever, Although that genetic in not on as great a as Robert was from a son of a and other his in plants and animals He and to One of his was his previous the of practicing medicine in as a physician in the he medical practice while also his on he verified that in sheep caused the disease. He to in and studied its life including and He his with of in and for to his to He who had him them to the medical then published them in and his Richard the with and a to in a fame was only by for he discovered the for and is most for his for which he was partly to (Carter his his were not the of his to was and his that distinct human and could not be from one species to the other was He was with from on He a in in part 44 (Egerton in plant bacteriology in and animal bacteriology in had from the University but he not learn bacteriology He taught it to while a He also yellow at became with it at the and In he was a of the of Since yellow to like diseases, he it was caused by an his microscope in the of victims to a He was a to his he of bacteriology from French into English wrote an edition and published his of In he was to to the discovery of a that caused he that the were He also that first discovery of the of was in In he became of the was of plant et al. and was of and of the most diseases are by and 1976). were in that were with professor and physician revived and to Kean et Egerton He had both and but with evidence and He was from a at he a and from its a In his to where he school and in the from which he an in In he a to where he studied diseases, about which he previously had known In he at an important He became in as he from to in for a he found at the British Museum in a by upon in found in the a which he was the of a the might be by He had two medical student in for in One student could only at and he found many more in than the having three found that were more in during than His with to on his and found the worms the about his early b) contained about their life became by he later de published the first book on medicine in (Egerton but that was not the of is considered the founder his discovery of the first disease to by an his a of the of his the School of Medicine in London He was in son of an studied medicine at and like as a physician in the but for the French (Foster In he in the in his father and studied In he discovered in from He found this parasite in and his Richard described an and that all published two on in and a book at Paris in He to and taught In he from the and joined the to study In he the for his on parasitic (a) (b) the Department of a of in to and head was who had from University and had at as an et and et passim). He a that three other who were and but with and Smith in and in was the son of a and as a he and Darwin's and of University he studied and in and then a from Veterinary in in he a as a with the which turned into an of three in Smith in and in Smith was to at a in (Egerton for were immigrants Foster Smith the of his was in and a from in and an from in him in He and became a who and in the of was later found to be with the a in was made head of the Veterinary at in was a who a variety of animal diseases, beginning with sheep In the had which his of with which are that the black-and-white ones are rather His of the fluke is in Fig. it the Plate life was not but was to be to that of the liver fluke plates are in the of parasites on sheep It is one of of the of worms which caused of species in this of anatomy not in Fig. by Plate The by this was that it was by which he but one at his until he that demonstrated it he the of with a in Smith the from a he studied until he a parasitic that caused the Smith accepted transmission was its and in divided it into each with a He Smith as of the of with to later His it was Smith research and under Smith their However, a Smith a from in which Smith as he was not to in that a and that the one who first by new a new is to the of such discovery This is the with on the theory here in but not of for animals had only that have had the had a but the for it were only that the report not that had the the of the to be the But that the not to it and where the and for the from who his but not (a) (b) (c) is a here in his on was to and contributed to but was known to Smith and to his However, it is also that had published his for as vector of Smith and The Veterinary contributions by to him a in In a Smith to this all the to him for he published his on the of the the report from who had with at the in concerning contributions in Smith as a the Smith there the of what had been discovered to Smith had on to and bacteriology at had to in to practice medicine and this In he with the of to an and by 12 had been from that from In that making for The most of was on a the more He that have been of and from and of of are in of He in an to when in London in he who had been in but his medical in London and published an that upon discovery of parasites in the of an to to and It was not an as there were a variety of and a variety of parasites, and he had to which were with was to and and had to learn to species and how to their who not become It was only when he the of an on that he found the had He on the life on caged He from the in The School of Medicine was in and was on its School of Medicine He the in He to research and on for the rest of his David son of immigrants from went to the University of to study but a to medicine (Foster his first as a physician in he the of a he in became his He joined the and in was to by discovery of the he a microscope and In he discovered a in the of a for which he published a in In it was into a new and the disease is In he was part of a that the of the disease to In the for where studied bacteriology and In he was to in David had in his and in that it was by the which he and described his on the 2. by N. described it in one and it in another is was known as to but not to and to be to his to the of but a he found a that he thought might be a which the disease in which he with He that the of the which not was and by from animals into domestic he that were from which parasites to The first human was an on the in (Foster (a) David (b) Foster 1965: Plate of parasitic diseases, throughout the 1700s and not and to a germ theory of disease. the of parasitic plant into alternation of sexual and asexual generations in was an important in but it not to an of diseases, by and other animals. in and and to be important of could not be achieved by but only by of knowledge about species species. bacteriology became an in the it not all diseases and yellow were diseases caused by but of their were during the 1800s. was in and three other viral diseases were by the of the and of investigators at the of in that a disease of was by a In that might be by and found a parasite by diseases were one could that other diseases also might the and an to the History of Medicine is a on the history of parasites et les surveys the history of parasitology and microbiology from to It is but it the 1800s and in only It a but not other discussed in this Farley 1977, Farley and Geison also surveyed both parasitology and bacteriology from the to History of with not is de Huard and have two in the but the other three in the and Dujardin. and in Early Medicine and of and also medicine to about Reinhard histories of the study of liver and spiral and History is a to the study of vector diseases, and there are two for and and History of the The most history of parasitology is Progress of in volumes, by and and have a Medicine and (two volumes, which of the 1800s. and a bibliography of the literature from to for the history of a disease. The literature on the history of bacteriology and microbiology for the 1800s. History of is a which remains de is worthy of the of discovery many during the 1800s. is but The of is with on and from to and in are of all in and of is somewhat for the 1700s but for the 1800s. of in is a but of and the on Robert and of of Disease the and in some it James of and the and Disease and in the British to germ theory from of is a and of which two important articles that parasitology during the 1800s at the of for their Veterinary Paris, and de