Abstract
The early works on and workers in dermatology dealt with conditions in a more or less general way. There was to a certain extent an attempt, no matter how crude it may have been, to survey the field with a broad outlook, dividing it up here and there into by-ways. The development, enlargement and multiplication of these by-ways has progressed with such rapid strides that today there is an overabundance of paths which have no meeting place in common, or at best a blind ending. Synthesis is forgotten, while analysis is the password of the worker. Slight differences in clinical or microscopic appearances are made the basis of a new disease, with the result that a veritable maze of descriptions, under as great a wealth of titles, has arisen. Some of these titles are absolute misnomers, while others have no basis of fact justifying their usage. An example of such

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: