Clinical Anatomy 27:1145–1148 (2014)
VIEWPOINT
Anatomical Eponyms, Part 2: The Other Side of the Coin REGIS OLRY* du Que bec a Trois-Rivie Department of Anatomy, Universite `res, Trois-Rivie `res, Canada
Over a century after they were removed, at least officially, from anatomical terminology, eponyms remain an obviously controversial topic. In the first part of this paper we acted as their defense counsel, aiming to demonstrate that the 1895 first edition of the Nomina Anatomica and subsequently the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology (FCAT) probably put the cart before the horse. However, their authors advanced arguments supporting their decision, and it is now time to develop these arguments. Let us now become the public prosecutor of eponyms. Clin. Anat. 27:1145–1148, 2014. VC 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Key words: eponyms; terminology; anatomical
INTRODUCTION In the first part of this study (Olry, in press), we discussed what we regard as the advantages of a scientific terminology including some eponyms. Using persuasive examples we aimed to demonstrate that eponyms have the following positive features: they are universal, prolific and extinctionresistant, cultural, potentially vicarious, at least useful, and sometimes even indispensable. It is now time to consider the other side of the coin: eponyms also have disadvantages that cannot be overlooked.
THE CONS 1. Eponyms have often been criticized for historical inaccuracy, paying undeserved tribute to people who were not the first discoverers of the structures in question. Caspar Bartholin (1655–1738) described the greater vestibular glands in 1677; notwithstanding previous (more or less accurate) in 1575, Francesco descriptions by Ambroise Pare Plazzoni in 1631, and Joseph Duverney in 1676, they became known as Bartholin’s glands. A similar inaccuracy led to the nervous fibers that had been outlined by Franz Schnopfhagen in 1877 and Bernhard Aloys von Gudden in 1879 being known as Ganser’s commissure (1882) (Olry, 1991b, Vol. 1, p 51–52, 349–350, respectively).
C V
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2. Many eponyms are vernacular names (from the Latin vernaculus, indigenous), i.e. they can differ from country to country. For example, the proximal deep inguinal lymph node is known as Cloquet’s ganglion in the French and English medi€ ller’s ganglion in cal literature, but as Rosenmu Germany (Rouvie `re, 1932, p 266; Paturet, 1951, p 1021). The same duality applies to the iliofemoral ligament: Bertin’s ligament in French, Bigelow’s ligament in English. 3. Translation errors are at the root of puzzling and erroneous eponyms. A first example, taken from the German: the so-called Kranz’s vein has been described as a coronary vein of the uterine body. Many physicians named Kranz (or possibly Krantz) could have been involved in describing such a vein in a publication devoted to gynecology or obstetrics: J. Antonius Kranz in 1829, Heinrich Krantz in 1884, Melchior Fremont Kranz in 1891, Peter Kranz in 1892, Bertram Kranz in 1896, or Michael Krantz in 1899 (Surgeon-General’s Office, 1886, p 541; Surgeon-General’s Office, 1903, p 845–846; Ricci, 1945, p 432). However, the real origin of gis Olry, Department of Anatomy, *Correspondence to: Pr. Re du Que bec a Trois-Rivie Universite `res, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivie `res, PQ, Canada G9A 5H7. E-mail: [email protected] Received 28 June 2014; Accepted 28 June 2014 Published online 25 July 2014 in Wiley Online (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/ca.22439
Library
1146 Olry this term was explained by Louis Hubert Farabeuf (1841–1910) in his famous 1905 study of pelvic blood vessels: the German term “Kranzvene” should not have been translated as “Kranz’s vein” but “ring-shaped coronary vein” (Farabeuf, 1905, p 164). A second example, this time from the Latin: muscle fibers surrounding the cardia and then sloping along the gastric lesser curvature have been called the Swiss necktie. However, this name has no connection with Helvetia, but is derived from a translation error: the Latin “collare Helvetii” should not have been translated as “Swiss necktie” but “Helvetius’ necklace or necktie,” referring to a 1719 study by Jean Claude Adrien Helvetius (1685–1755) concerning food trituration in the stomach (Helvetius, 1719). 4. In 1990, Mireille Cavalerie introduced the notion ponymes confusionnants” (con(and the term) “e fusing eponyms) for eponyms denoting symmetrical organs that share a common function (Cavalerie, 1990, p 48). She gave the example of Stensen’s and Wharton’s canals: both terms are devoid of clues (logical, mnemonic, or of course etymological) to indicate which of them belongs to the parotid gland and which to the submandibular gland. 5. Namesakes can complicate matters, especially when they share the same given name! The Monro dynasty is a prime example (Wright-St. Clair, 1964): Alexander Monro Primus (1697–1767), Secundus (1733–1817), and Tertius (1773–1859) successively occupied the chair of anatomy at the University of Edinburgh for 126 years without interruption (Persaud, 1997, p 171). It should be noted here that Monro’s foramen was described in 1783 by Alexander Secundus. Wilhelm His Senior (1831–1904) described the parablast cells (His’s cells) in 1868, and Wilhelm His Junior (1863– 1934) described the atrioventricular bundle (His’s bundle) in 1893. Johann Friedrich Meckel (1724– 1774) described the sphenopalatine ganglion (Meckel’s ganglion) in 1749, and his grandson Johann Friedrich Meckel (1781–1833) described the cartilage of the first branchial arch (Meckel’s cartilage) in 1817. And to crown it all, two namesakes have given their name to homonymous formations: the classical examples are the two Cloquet’s ganglia. “Cloquet’s ganglion” refers either to the proximal deep inguinal lymphatic node described in 1817 by Jules Germain Cloquet (1790–1883), or to the nervous nasopalatine ganglion described in 1818 by his brother Hippolyte Joseph Cloquet (1787–1840). 6. The list of eponyms includes many redundancies. On an anteroposterior radiograph of the normal hip joint, a regular curve is formed by the top of the obturator foramen and the inferior border of the femoral neck. Radiologists are spoilt for choice nard’s, for terms to denote this line: Shenton’s, Me Makka’s, Skinner’s line, or all kinds of combina nard’s, and even tions such as Shenton-Me nard-Makka’s line (Dona th, 1960, p Shenton-Me 410; Leiber and Olbert, 1968, p 294–295; Gilliland
and Montgomery, 2011, p 45). Another example is the ileocecal valve, which is most commonly dubbed Bauhin’s valve but also Tulp’s, Macalister’s, Falloppio’s, Morgagni’s, or Varolio’s valve (Terra, 1913, p 568). 7. Bouisson’s tubercle belongs to a category of terms we propose to refer to as “ghost eponyms” (in reference to the books which, though mentioned occasionally by collectors and historians, seem never to have existed; hence the term “bibliographical ghosts”). The French anatomist gis Bouisson (1776–1805) is Mathieu-Franc ¸ois-Re sometimes credited with the very first description of an accessory tubercle located on the greater sciatic notch of the coxal bone, hence the eponym “Bouisson’s tubercle.” Actually, this tubercle was described by the Paris surgeon Hippolyte Morestin (1869–1919) in his 1894 MD thesis, but to the best of our knowledge Bouisson never pointed it out (Lazorthes and Lhez, 1939). The same mistake seems to apply to the dorsal tubercle of radius, eponymously remembered as Lister’s tubercle, though probably never described by British surgeon Sir Joseph Lister (1827–1912) (Bett, 1952). Still more typical is the case of Ammon’s horn, sometimes believed to have been described by the German ophthalmologist Friedrich August von Ammon (1799–1861); in fact, the hippocampus was compared to the horns of the Phoenician God Amon (Ionescu, 1991, p 22) long before the birth of Friedrich August von Ammon. The term “Ammon’s horn” was already in common use by Jacques the time of the 1742 edition of Rene Croissant de Garengeot’s (1688–1759) Splanchnologie (Olry, 1991a). In any case, Friedrich August von Ammon published no studies of brain anatomy (Albert et al., 1995, p 9–10). 8. Eponyms can be used to settle a score with someone. In 1748, the naturalist and physician Carl von (1707–1778) was targeted by Buffon; Linne Georges-Louis Leclerc, count of Buffon (1707– 1788), attacked his Swedish colleague for the superfluous complexity of his nomenclature. Von found an original way to take revenge: he Linne gave the name Buffonia to a smelly plant (Roger, 1989, p 409). Happily, we have found no example of this kind of “vengeful” eponym in anatomy. 9. Finally, to close this (non-exhaustive) list of cons, a much more sensitive topic. After a link between Eduard Pernkopf’s anatomical atlas and Nazi mass extermination politics was uncovered, a heated argument ensued (Israel and Seidelman, 1996; Angetter, 2000; Hubbard, 2001). History repeats itself, but this time with so-called “tainted eponyms” (Woywodt et al., 2010), referring to members of the Nazi Party or those sympathetic to it (moral complicity?). Most of these are in the clinical sciences and have been more or less officially replaced with common nouns. Examples include: congenital cutaneous candidiasis (e.g., Beck-Ibrahim disease), portal vein thrombosis (e.g., Cauchy-Eppinger-Frugoni syndrome), pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration
Anatomical Eponyms: The Cons 1147 (e.g., Hallervorden-Spatz disease), reactive arthritis (e.g., Reiter syndrome), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (e.g., Wegener granulomatosis)1. Morphological sciences are not wholly immune from tainted eponyms; Clara cells (nonciliated bronchiolar secretory: Widdicomb and Pack, 1982) were described in 1937 by Max Clara (1899– 1966), an active member of the Nazi Party. This eponym has therefore been banished from most major respiratory journals; the official term is now “club cells” (Irwin et al., 2013).
DISCUSSION In light of what we have surveyed in this article, eponyms have the following negative features: historically inaccurate (Point 1), vernacular (Point 2), confusing in many ways (Points 3, 4, and 5), redundant (Point 6), groundless (Point 7), and tainted (Point 8). The historical inaccuracy (Point 1) of some eponyms is well documented. However, we offer three remarks. First, such shortcomings are frequent (perhaps inevitable?) in the history of science because all scientists have had forebears who led the way. Albert Einstein is credited with the discovery of both general and special relativities although Henri Poincare (1854–1912) and even Galilei Galileo (1564–1642) are known to have laid the foundations of those theories (Greif, 2005). Second, inaccuracy does not mean error (a term that would rightly apply to the “ghost eponyms”, Point 7), but only lack of precision (Bartholin described the greater vestibular glands but did not discover them). Third, most eponyms were coined not by the discoverer himself but by a successor. Though “clinically” useless, vernacular terms (Point 2) are found in all fields of science and embody different cultures and their histories. A well-known example is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: European physicians opted for the name of Jean Martin Charcot (1825– 1893), the French neurologist who differentiated between this disease and ordinary Aran-Duchenne muscular dystrophy in 1874, while American physicians preferred the name of Lou Gehrig, a famous baseball first baseman of the New York Yankees who died of this disease on June 2, 1941. Translation errors (Point 3) should not be imputed to the eponyms themselves but obviously to the translators. Confusing eponyms (Point 4) are historically interesting but lack clinical relevance. Namesakes (Point 5) are not a real problem: to the best of our knowledge, no one has ever suggested changing the name of the German town Heidelberg just because there are other cities named Heidelberg in South Africa and Pennsylvania. A list of synonymous eponyms (Point 6) is obviously devoid of scientific value. They are of no clinical interest, inasmuch as one can be an outstanding tho1 Yusuf Ibrahim (1877–1953), pediatrician; Hans Eppinger (1879– 1946), physician at the Dachau concentration camp; Julius Hallervorden (1882–1965) and Hugo Spatz (1888–1969), neuropathologists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research; Hans Conrad Julius Reiter (1881–1969), physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp; Friedrich Wegener (1907–1990), pathologist at Lodz, Poland.
racic surgeon while not knowing that HerrnheiserKubat’s anterior subpleuromediastinal vein (yes, it really exists!) refers to a venous plexus in the right upper pulmonary lobe. If an eponym is coined in order to pay homage to someone, we would of course recommend its abandonment if heavy suspicion hangs over the person in question (Point 9). However, the link between a discoverer and his/her discovery is sometimes far from simple: the case of French physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738–1814) and his “simple mechanism” (Soubiran, 1962) is a very good example to consider. So, what about eponyms in anatomy? Some remain useful, others are obviously superfluous, but all have a special relationship with history of medicine. Therefore, those that should be deleted from the “official/ scientific/technical” terminology should nevertheless be preserved in some recess of collective memory, like treasures in a museum. Eponyms do not ensure that patients are better treated, but they go a long way toward making the practice of medicine one of the most exciting jobs!
REFERENCES Albert DM, Norton EWD, Hurtes R. 1995. Source Book of Ophthalmology. Cambridge: Blackwell Science. Angetter D. 2000. Anatomical science at University of Vienna 1938– 1945. Lancet 355:1454–1457. Bett WR. 1952. Sir William Watson Cheyne, 1852–1932. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 11:364–366. Cavalerie M. 1990. Analyse critique de la Nouvelle Terminologie Anatomique. DMD Thesis, Paris. th T. 1960. Erla € uterndes anatomisches Wo € rterbuch. VergleiDona € chende Ubersicht der Baseler, Jenaer und Pariser Nomenklaturen, gruppiert nach Organan. Terra Budapest: Verlag Medicina Budapest. nitoFarabeuf LH. 1905. Les vaisseaux sanguins des organes ge rine e et du pelvis. Paris:Masson. urinaires du pe Gilliland K, Montgomery R. 2011. Anatomists and Eponyms. The Spirit of Anatomy Past. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press. Greif JJ. 2005. Einstein. L’homme qui chevauchait la lumie `re. Paris: l’Archipel. p 1–347. Helvetius JCA. 1719. Observations anatomiques sur l’estomac de flexions sur le syste l’homme, avec des re `me nouveau, qui regarde la trituration dans l’estomac, comme cause de la diges mie des Sciences, November 15, 1719 tion des aliments. Acade session. Hubbard C. 2001. Eduard Pernkopf’s atlas of topographical and applied human anatomy: The continuing ethical controversy. Anat Rec 265:207–211. Ionescu M. 1991. Dict ¸ionar de Anatomis ¸ti. Bucures ¸ti: Editura Litera. Irwin RS, Augustyn N, French CT, Rice J, Tedeschi V, Welch SJ. 2013. Spread the word about the journal in 2013: From citation manipulation to invalidation of patient-reported outcomes measures to renaming the Clara cells to new journal features. Chest 143:1–5. Israel HA, Seidelman WE. 1996. Nazi origins of an anatomy text: The Pernkopf atlas. JAMA 276:1633. chancrure sciatique. Etude Lazorthes G, Lhez A. 1939. La grande e de sa morphologie et de ses caracte `res sexuels. Arch Anat Hist Embryol 27:143–170. Leiber B, Olbert T. 1968. Die klinischen Eponyme. Medizinische € nchen Berlin Wien: Eigennamenbegriffe in Klinik und Praxis. Mu Urban & Schwarzenberg. taphores zoologiques au sein des ventricules Olry R. 1991a. Me raux du cerveau, ou l’imagination au service de la linguistilate que. Hist Sci Med 25:221–224.
1148 Olry ponymes en anatomie. MD Olry R. 1991b. Dictionnaire critique des e Thesis, 3 Vols., Nancy. Olry R. Anatomical eponyms, Part 1: To look on the bright side. Clin Anat, in press. d’anatomie humaine. Vol. 2: Membres Paturet G. 1951. Traite rieur et infe rieur. Paris: Masson. supe Persaud TVN. 1997. A History of Anatomy. The Post-Vesalian Era. Springfield: Charles C Thomas. Ricci JV. 1945. One Hundred Years of Gynaecology. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Company. Roger J. 1989. Buffon. Un philosophe au Jardin du Roi. Paris: Fayard. Rouvie `re H. 1932. Anatomie des lymphatiques de l’homme. Paris. Masson. canique. Soubiran A. 1962. Ce bon docteur Guillotin et sa simple me Paris:Perrin. p 1–308.
Surgeon-General’s Office. 1886. Index-Catalogue of the Library. Vol. 7. Washington: Government Printing Office. Surgeon-General’s Office. 1903. Index-Catalogue of the Library. Vol. 8. Second Series. Washington: Government Printing Office. Terra P de. 1913. Vademecum anatomicum. Kritisch-etymologisches €rterbuch der systematischen Anatomie. Mit besonderer Wo € cksichtigung der Synonymen. Nebst einem Anhang: Die Beru anatomischen Schriftsteller des Altertums bis zur Neuzeit. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer. Widdicomb JG, Pack RJ. 1982. The Clara cell. Eur J Respir Dis 63: 202–220. Woywodt A, Lefrak S, Matteson E. 2010. Tainted eponyms in medicine: The “Clara” cell joins the list. ERJ 36:706–708. Wright-St. Clair RE. 1964. Doctors Monro: A Medical Saga. London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library. p 1–190.
VIEWPOINT
Anatomical Eponyms, Part 2: The Other Side of the Coin REGIS OLRY* du Que bec a Trois-Rivie Department of Anatomy, Universite `res, Trois-Rivie `res, Canada
Over a century after they were removed, at least officially, from anatomical terminology, eponyms remain an obviously controversial topic. In the first part of this paper we acted as their defense counsel, aiming to demonstrate that the 1895 first edition of the Nomina Anatomica and subsequently the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology (FCAT) probably put the cart before the horse. However, their authors advanced arguments supporting their decision, and it is now time to develop these arguments. Let us now become the public prosecutor of eponyms. Clin. Anat. 27:1145–1148, 2014. VC 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Key words: eponyms; terminology; anatomical
INTRODUCTION In the first part of this study (Olry, in press), we discussed what we regard as the advantages of a scientific terminology including some eponyms. Using persuasive examples we aimed to demonstrate that eponyms have the following positive features: they are universal, prolific and extinctionresistant, cultural, potentially vicarious, at least useful, and sometimes even indispensable. It is now time to consider the other side of the coin: eponyms also have disadvantages that cannot be overlooked.
THE CONS 1. Eponyms have often been criticized for historical inaccuracy, paying undeserved tribute to people who were not the first discoverers of the structures in question. Caspar Bartholin (1655–1738) described the greater vestibular glands in 1677; notwithstanding previous (more or less accurate) in 1575, Francesco descriptions by Ambroise Pare Plazzoni in 1631, and Joseph Duverney in 1676, they became known as Bartholin’s glands. A similar inaccuracy led to the nervous fibers that had been outlined by Franz Schnopfhagen in 1877 and Bernhard Aloys von Gudden in 1879 being known as Ganser’s commissure (1882) (Olry, 1991b, Vol. 1, p 51–52, 349–350, respectively).
C V
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2. Many eponyms are vernacular names (from the Latin vernaculus, indigenous), i.e. they can differ from country to country. For example, the proximal deep inguinal lymph node is known as Cloquet’s ganglion in the French and English medi€ ller’s ganglion in cal literature, but as Rosenmu Germany (Rouvie `re, 1932, p 266; Paturet, 1951, p 1021). The same duality applies to the iliofemoral ligament: Bertin’s ligament in French, Bigelow’s ligament in English. 3. Translation errors are at the root of puzzling and erroneous eponyms. A first example, taken from the German: the so-called Kranz’s vein has been described as a coronary vein of the uterine body. Many physicians named Kranz (or possibly Krantz) could have been involved in describing such a vein in a publication devoted to gynecology or obstetrics: J. Antonius Kranz in 1829, Heinrich Krantz in 1884, Melchior Fremont Kranz in 1891, Peter Kranz in 1892, Bertram Kranz in 1896, or Michael Krantz in 1899 (Surgeon-General’s Office, 1886, p 541; Surgeon-General’s Office, 1903, p 845–846; Ricci, 1945, p 432). However, the real origin of gis Olry, Department of Anatomy, *Correspondence to: Pr. Re du Que bec a Trois-Rivie Universite `res, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivie `res, PQ, Canada G9A 5H7. E-mail: [email protected] Received 28 June 2014; Accepted 28 June 2014 Published online 25 July 2014 in Wiley Online (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/ca.22439
Library
1146 Olry this term was explained by Louis Hubert Farabeuf (1841–1910) in his famous 1905 study of pelvic blood vessels: the German term “Kranzvene” should not have been translated as “Kranz’s vein” but “ring-shaped coronary vein” (Farabeuf, 1905, p 164). A second example, this time from the Latin: muscle fibers surrounding the cardia and then sloping along the gastric lesser curvature have been called the Swiss necktie. However, this name has no connection with Helvetia, but is derived from a translation error: the Latin “collare Helvetii” should not have been translated as “Swiss necktie” but “Helvetius’ necklace or necktie,” referring to a 1719 study by Jean Claude Adrien Helvetius (1685–1755) concerning food trituration in the stomach (Helvetius, 1719). 4. In 1990, Mireille Cavalerie introduced the notion ponymes confusionnants” (con(and the term) “e fusing eponyms) for eponyms denoting symmetrical organs that share a common function (Cavalerie, 1990, p 48). She gave the example of Stensen’s and Wharton’s canals: both terms are devoid of clues (logical, mnemonic, or of course etymological) to indicate which of them belongs to the parotid gland and which to the submandibular gland. 5. Namesakes can complicate matters, especially when they share the same given name! The Monro dynasty is a prime example (Wright-St. Clair, 1964): Alexander Monro Primus (1697–1767), Secundus (1733–1817), and Tertius (1773–1859) successively occupied the chair of anatomy at the University of Edinburgh for 126 years without interruption (Persaud, 1997, p 171). It should be noted here that Monro’s foramen was described in 1783 by Alexander Secundus. Wilhelm His Senior (1831–1904) described the parablast cells (His’s cells) in 1868, and Wilhelm His Junior (1863– 1934) described the atrioventricular bundle (His’s bundle) in 1893. Johann Friedrich Meckel (1724– 1774) described the sphenopalatine ganglion (Meckel’s ganglion) in 1749, and his grandson Johann Friedrich Meckel (1781–1833) described the cartilage of the first branchial arch (Meckel’s cartilage) in 1817. And to crown it all, two namesakes have given their name to homonymous formations: the classical examples are the two Cloquet’s ganglia. “Cloquet’s ganglion” refers either to the proximal deep inguinal lymphatic node described in 1817 by Jules Germain Cloquet (1790–1883), or to the nervous nasopalatine ganglion described in 1818 by his brother Hippolyte Joseph Cloquet (1787–1840). 6. The list of eponyms includes many redundancies. On an anteroposterior radiograph of the normal hip joint, a regular curve is formed by the top of the obturator foramen and the inferior border of the femoral neck. Radiologists are spoilt for choice nard’s, for terms to denote this line: Shenton’s, Me Makka’s, Skinner’s line, or all kinds of combina nard’s, and even tions such as Shenton-Me nard-Makka’s line (Dona th, 1960, p Shenton-Me 410; Leiber and Olbert, 1968, p 294–295; Gilliland
and Montgomery, 2011, p 45). Another example is the ileocecal valve, which is most commonly dubbed Bauhin’s valve but also Tulp’s, Macalister’s, Falloppio’s, Morgagni’s, or Varolio’s valve (Terra, 1913, p 568). 7. Bouisson’s tubercle belongs to a category of terms we propose to refer to as “ghost eponyms” (in reference to the books which, though mentioned occasionally by collectors and historians, seem never to have existed; hence the term “bibliographical ghosts”). The French anatomist gis Bouisson (1776–1805) is Mathieu-Franc ¸ois-Re sometimes credited with the very first description of an accessory tubercle located on the greater sciatic notch of the coxal bone, hence the eponym “Bouisson’s tubercle.” Actually, this tubercle was described by the Paris surgeon Hippolyte Morestin (1869–1919) in his 1894 MD thesis, but to the best of our knowledge Bouisson never pointed it out (Lazorthes and Lhez, 1939). The same mistake seems to apply to the dorsal tubercle of radius, eponymously remembered as Lister’s tubercle, though probably never described by British surgeon Sir Joseph Lister (1827–1912) (Bett, 1952). Still more typical is the case of Ammon’s horn, sometimes believed to have been described by the German ophthalmologist Friedrich August von Ammon (1799–1861); in fact, the hippocampus was compared to the horns of the Phoenician God Amon (Ionescu, 1991, p 22) long before the birth of Friedrich August von Ammon. The term “Ammon’s horn” was already in common use by Jacques the time of the 1742 edition of Rene Croissant de Garengeot’s (1688–1759) Splanchnologie (Olry, 1991a). In any case, Friedrich August von Ammon published no studies of brain anatomy (Albert et al., 1995, p 9–10). 8. Eponyms can be used to settle a score with someone. In 1748, the naturalist and physician Carl von (1707–1778) was targeted by Buffon; Linne Georges-Louis Leclerc, count of Buffon (1707– 1788), attacked his Swedish colleague for the superfluous complexity of his nomenclature. Von found an original way to take revenge: he Linne gave the name Buffonia to a smelly plant (Roger, 1989, p 409). Happily, we have found no example of this kind of “vengeful” eponym in anatomy. 9. Finally, to close this (non-exhaustive) list of cons, a much more sensitive topic. After a link between Eduard Pernkopf’s anatomical atlas and Nazi mass extermination politics was uncovered, a heated argument ensued (Israel and Seidelman, 1996; Angetter, 2000; Hubbard, 2001). History repeats itself, but this time with so-called “tainted eponyms” (Woywodt et al., 2010), referring to members of the Nazi Party or those sympathetic to it (moral complicity?). Most of these are in the clinical sciences and have been more or less officially replaced with common nouns. Examples include: congenital cutaneous candidiasis (e.g., Beck-Ibrahim disease), portal vein thrombosis (e.g., Cauchy-Eppinger-Frugoni syndrome), pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration
Anatomical Eponyms: The Cons 1147 (e.g., Hallervorden-Spatz disease), reactive arthritis (e.g., Reiter syndrome), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (e.g., Wegener granulomatosis)1. Morphological sciences are not wholly immune from tainted eponyms; Clara cells (nonciliated bronchiolar secretory: Widdicomb and Pack, 1982) were described in 1937 by Max Clara (1899– 1966), an active member of the Nazi Party. This eponym has therefore been banished from most major respiratory journals; the official term is now “club cells” (Irwin et al., 2013).
DISCUSSION In light of what we have surveyed in this article, eponyms have the following negative features: historically inaccurate (Point 1), vernacular (Point 2), confusing in many ways (Points 3, 4, and 5), redundant (Point 6), groundless (Point 7), and tainted (Point 8). The historical inaccuracy (Point 1) of some eponyms is well documented. However, we offer three remarks. First, such shortcomings are frequent (perhaps inevitable?) in the history of science because all scientists have had forebears who led the way. Albert Einstein is credited with the discovery of both general and special relativities although Henri Poincare (1854–1912) and even Galilei Galileo (1564–1642) are known to have laid the foundations of those theories (Greif, 2005). Second, inaccuracy does not mean error (a term that would rightly apply to the “ghost eponyms”, Point 7), but only lack of precision (Bartholin described the greater vestibular glands but did not discover them). Third, most eponyms were coined not by the discoverer himself but by a successor. Though “clinically” useless, vernacular terms (Point 2) are found in all fields of science and embody different cultures and their histories. A well-known example is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: European physicians opted for the name of Jean Martin Charcot (1825– 1893), the French neurologist who differentiated between this disease and ordinary Aran-Duchenne muscular dystrophy in 1874, while American physicians preferred the name of Lou Gehrig, a famous baseball first baseman of the New York Yankees who died of this disease on June 2, 1941. Translation errors (Point 3) should not be imputed to the eponyms themselves but obviously to the translators. Confusing eponyms (Point 4) are historically interesting but lack clinical relevance. Namesakes (Point 5) are not a real problem: to the best of our knowledge, no one has ever suggested changing the name of the German town Heidelberg just because there are other cities named Heidelberg in South Africa and Pennsylvania. A list of synonymous eponyms (Point 6) is obviously devoid of scientific value. They are of no clinical interest, inasmuch as one can be an outstanding tho1 Yusuf Ibrahim (1877–1953), pediatrician; Hans Eppinger (1879– 1946), physician at the Dachau concentration camp; Julius Hallervorden (1882–1965) and Hugo Spatz (1888–1969), neuropathologists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research; Hans Conrad Julius Reiter (1881–1969), physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp; Friedrich Wegener (1907–1990), pathologist at Lodz, Poland.
racic surgeon while not knowing that HerrnheiserKubat’s anterior subpleuromediastinal vein (yes, it really exists!) refers to a venous plexus in the right upper pulmonary lobe. If an eponym is coined in order to pay homage to someone, we would of course recommend its abandonment if heavy suspicion hangs over the person in question (Point 9). However, the link between a discoverer and his/her discovery is sometimes far from simple: the case of French physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738–1814) and his “simple mechanism” (Soubiran, 1962) is a very good example to consider. So, what about eponyms in anatomy? Some remain useful, others are obviously superfluous, but all have a special relationship with history of medicine. Therefore, those that should be deleted from the “official/ scientific/technical” terminology should nevertheless be preserved in some recess of collective memory, like treasures in a museum. Eponyms do not ensure that patients are better treated, but they go a long way toward making the practice of medicine one of the most exciting jobs!
REFERENCES Albert DM, Norton EWD, Hurtes R. 1995. Source Book of Ophthalmology. Cambridge: Blackwell Science. Angetter D. 2000. Anatomical science at University of Vienna 1938– 1945. Lancet 355:1454–1457. Bett WR. 1952. Sir William Watson Cheyne, 1852–1932. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 11:364–366. Cavalerie M. 1990. Analyse critique de la Nouvelle Terminologie Anatomique. DMD Thesis, Paris. th T. 1960. Erla € uterndes anatomisches Wo € rterbuch. VergleiDona € chende Ubersicht der Baseler, Jenaer und Pariser Nomenklaturen, gruppiert nach Organan. Terra Budapest: Verlag Medicina Budapest. nitoFarabeuf LH. 1905. Les vaisseaux sanguins des organes ge rine e et du pelvis. Paris:Masson. urinaires du pe Gilliland K, Montgomery R. 2011. Anatomists and Eponyms. The Spirit of Anatomy Past. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press. Greif JJ. 2005. Einstein. L’homme qui chevauchait la lumie `re. Paris: l’Archipel. p 1–347. Helvetius JCA. 1719. Observations anatomiques sur l’estomac de flexions sur le syste l’homme, avec des re `me nouveau, qui regarde la trituration dans l’estomac, comme cause de la diges mie des Sciences, November 15, 1719 tion des aliments. Acade session. Hubbard C. 2001. Eduard Pernkopf’s atlas of topographical and applied human anatomy: The continuing ethical controversy. Anat Rec 265:207–211. Ionescu M. 1991. Dict ¸ionar de Anatomis ¸ti. Bucures ¸ti: Editura Litera. Irwin RS, Augustyn N, French CT, Rice J, Tedeschi V, Welch SJ. 2013. Spread the word about the journal in 2013: From citation manipulation to invalidation of patient-reported outcomes measures to renaming the Clara cells to new journal features. Chest 143:1–5. Israel HA, Seidelman WE. 1996. Nazi origins of an anatomy text: The Pernkopf atlas. JAMA 276:1633. chancrure sciatique. Etude Lazorthes G, Lhez A. 1939. La grande e de sa morphologie et de ses caracte `res sexuels. Arch Anat Hist Embryol 27:143–170. Leiber B, Olbert T. 1968. Die klinischen Eponyme. Medizinische € nchen Berlin Wien: Eigennamenbegriffe in Klinik und Praxis. Mu Urban & Schwarzenberg. taphores zoologiques au sein des ventricules Olry R. 1991a. Me raux du cerveau, ou l’imagination au service de la linguistilate que. Hist Sci Med 25:221–224.
1148 Olry ponymes en anatomie. MD Olry R. 1991b. Dictionnaire critique des e Thesis, 3 Vols., Nancy. Olry R. Anatomical eponyms, Part 1: To look on the bright side. Clin Anat, in press. d’anatomie humaine. Vol. 2: Membres Paturet G. 1951. Traite rieur et infe rieur. Paris: Masson. supe Persaud TVN. 1997. A History of Anatomy. The Post-Vesalian Era. Springfield: Charles C Thomas. Ricci JV. 1945. One Hundred Years of Gynaecology. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Company. Roger J. 1989. Buffon. Un philosophe au Jardin du Roi. Paris: Fayard. Rouvie `re H. 1932. Anatomie des lymphatiques de l’homme. Paris. Masson. canique. Soubiran A. 1962. Ce bon docteur Guillotin et sa simple me Paris:Perrin. p 1–308.
Surgeon-General’s Office. 1886. Index-Catalogue of the Library. Vol. 7. Washington: Government Printing Office. Surgeon-General’s Office. 1903. Index-Catalogue of the Library. Vol. 8. Second Series. Washington: Government Printing Office. Terra P de. 1913. Vademecum anatomicum. Kritisch-etymologisches €rterbuch der systematischen Anatomie. Mit besonderer Wo € cksichtigung der Synonymen. Nebst einem Anhang: Die Beru anatomischen Schriftsteller des Altertums bis zur Neuzeit. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer. Widdicomb JG, Pack RJ. 1982. The Clara cell. Eur J Respir Dis 63: 202–220. Woywodt A, Lefrak S, Matteson E. 2010. Tainted eponyms in medicine: The “Clara” cell joins the list. ERJ 36:706–708. Wright-St. Clair RE. 1964. Doctors Monro: A Medical Saga. London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library. p 1–190.
