Page:Archives of dermatology, vol 6.djvu/235

 223

REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.

The Pathology and Treatment of Venereal Diseases. By Freeman J. Bumstead, M.D., and Robert W. Taylor, M.D. Fourth edition. Philadelphia, Henry C. I.ea, 1879. Pp- ^22.

The statement in the preface to this work, which is over the sig- nature of Dr. Bumstead, that the author was chiefly embarrassed in its preparation by want of time and strength, has since received sad confirmation in the fact that his life was ended before it was given to the public. That in this book he has left behind him a monu- ment to his memory which will endure as long as comprehensive scholarship and rare skill in utilizing it for the benefit of a profession are justly estimated will, we think, not be doubted by any one who reads it.

The preface further states that, '* fortunately the author was able to overcome the hindrances alluded to above, by the association with him of a gentleman. Dr. R. W. Taylor, of this city, who was already well known in the United States and abroad by his original contributions to our knowledge of venereal diseases, and who was admirably adapted, both by his own experience and by his extensive reading, to engage in a work which has occupied us conjointly for the last two years. Still further, Dr. E. G. Loring, who revised the chapter on diseases of the eye in the last edition, kindly consented to do the same in this."

Admirable as were the previous editions, the authors have never- theless labored so earnestly in the preparation of this one, that, as Dr. Bumstead truly says, the book is rather a new than an old one revised, it being fuller than the last by 131 pages, each chapter having been thoroughly worked over, and brought up to the advanced standard of the present day. The introduction has been materially shortened, discussion as to the non-identity of chancroid and chancre having been omitted, the question, in the opinion of the author, having been settled in the affirmative beyond the shadow of a doubt. In the historical part of the introduction, a seemingly strong argu- ment in favor of giving to America the undesirable honor of being the birthplace of syphilis is furnished by citing with approval as to their justness the observations of Dr. Joseph Jones upon the syph- ilitic bones found in the stone-graves of Kentucky and Tennessee. It may be remarked in this connection that if it be accepted as true that syphilis did originate in America, it must seem strange that the disease should be so much rarer in this country, outside the large