Page:The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury.djvu/216

THE INSTITUTE IDEA the Museum exhibited some of its resources in the way of specimens of ophthalmic pathology, most of which had been collected from members of the Academy during the year since the joint project was undertaken. The exhibit received high praise from the doctors in attendance, and was the subject of commendatory letters and expressions of appreciation from Dr. Walter R. Parker of Detroit, president of the Academy during the first year of its sponsorship of the Registry. 15 The arrangement between the Museum and the professional sponsors of the Registry was strengthened by the subsequent addition of Dr. Jonas Stein Friedenwald of Baltimore and Dr. Georgiana Theobald of Chicago to its sponsoring committee. It was further advanced during its first year in operation by the gift, from Dr. James Moores Ball of St. Louis, of his entire collection of historical and operative ophthalmic materials. The Ball collection became, indeed, something of a cornerstone in the building of the Registry. It included 136 items of historical interest and value, which alone "would have been a generous donation" to the Museum. But this was only a portion of the gift, which included an interesting collection of ophthalmic instruments, large numbers of microscopic slides and other items, nearly 500 gross pathological specimens, and more than 1,000 pictorial items.16

While the movement for what came to be called the Registry of Ophthalmic Pathology originated with the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, and that organization continued to be its major support, it was soon strengthened by the affiliation of the two other groups of specialists in this field, the American Ophthalmological Society and the Ophthalmic Section of the American Medical Association. The Registry was fortunate both in its professional sponsorship and in the Army personnel with which it had to deal. Surgeon General Ireland and Curator Callender were of one mind in feeling that the Medical Museum should, as Major Callender put it, "become a live activity in pathology in addition to its function of collecting, studying and reporting on the injuries and diseases of armed conflict." 17