Neurological Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 7, pp 1275–1277 | Cite as

Did Antonio Vallisneri (1661–1730) really describe frontal sinus osteoma? Unexpected insights for paleo-neuroparasitology

  • Francesco M. Galassi
  • Elena VarottoEmail author
  • Alberto Zanatta
  • Fabio ZampieriEmail author
Brief Communication


It has been believed for a long time that the Paduan scholar Antonio Vallisneri (1661–1730) described the second historical case of the frontal sinus osteoma in 1733. By historico-medically reexamining this case, we conclude that the brain concretions he described were not a case of frontal sinus osteoma, while they appear to have been pathological outcomes of neurocysticercosis, whose larval stages would only be described by Johann Goeze (1731–1793) later, in 1784. Thus, this case becomes relevant for the history of neuroparasitology.


Vallisneri History of medicine Frontal sinus osteoma Neurocysticercosis Paleoneurology 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Lentine J, Saeed Y (1960) Osteoma of the paranasal sinuses. Arch Otolaryngol 72:722–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mali SB (2014) Paranasal sinus osteoma: review of literature. Oral Surg 7:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lagrange F (1904) Traitè des tumeurs de l’oeil, de l’orbite et des annexes. G. Steinheil, Paris, vol. 2, p. 316Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tedd W (1941) Primary osteoma of the frontal sinus. Arch Otolaryngol 33:255–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vallisneri A (1709) Considerazioni, ed esperienze intorno al creduto cervello di bue impietrito, vivente ancor l’animale. Nella Stamperia del Seminario, PaduaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du Verney J-G (1703) Sur un cerveau pétrifié. In: Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences, 2nd edn. Chez Charles-Estienne Hochereau, Paris, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lopes WD, Santos TR, Soares VE et al (2011) Preferential infection sites of Cysticercus bovis in cattle experimentally infected with Taenia saginata eggs. Res Vet Sci 90:84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox FEG (2002) History of human parasitology. Clin Microbiol Rev 15:595–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    García HH, Gonzales AE, Evans AWE et al (2003) Taenia solium cysticercosis. Lancet 362:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goeze JAE (1784) Neueste Entdeckung: daß die Finnen im Schweinefleisch keine Drüsenkrankheit, sondern wahre Blasenwürmer sindGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Department of ArchaeologyFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Evolutionary MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and SurgeryDivision of PaleopathologyPisaItaly
  4. 4.Unit of Medical Humanities, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular SciencesUniversity of Padua Medical SchoolPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations