Hornstein-Knickenberg syndrome vs. Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome: a critical review of an unjustified designation.

The disorder that is presently called 'Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome' was in reality delineated in 1975 by Otto P. Hornstein and Monika Knickenberg from Erlangen (Germany) who emphasized that the occurrence of multiple 'perifollicular fibromas' represented a distinct autosomal dominant trait heralding extracutaneous cancer proneness. By contrast, Arthur R. Birt, Georgina R. Hogg and W. James Dubé from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, claimed in 1977 that they had discovered 'a previously unrecognized hereditary pilar hamartoma' for which they proposed the name 'fibrofolliculoma', to be distinguished from the perifollicular fibromas as reported by Hornstein and Knickenberg. Today, many authors believe that 'fibrofolliculoma' is identical with 'perifollicular fibroma', but for the purpose of the present article this question can be left open. More importantly, the Canadian authors did not mention any association with extracutaneous cancer proneness within the large family examined in Winnipeg, nor when discussing the report from Erlangen, which means that they have neither described nor redescribed the syndrome that presently bears their names. Hence, the autosomal dominant disorder of multiple perifollicular fibromas heralding proclivity to extracutaneous cancer should be called after the original authors, Hornstein-Knickenberg syndrome.

[In process.] / Otto Warburg, die Quanten und die Photosynthese.

Whoever turns to the history of photosynthesis research in the twentieth century is soon confronted with the fact that one of its most exciting periods, the years from 1938 to 1955 (and even beyond), was in large part overshadowed by a bitter controversy in which many of the leading scientists in the field were involved: the dispute on the minimal quantum requirement - or, its inverse: the maximum quantum yield - of photosynthesis. On the one side was Otto H. WARBURG (1883 -1970), who, in 1923, had found that 4-5 light quanta were required for one molecule of oxygen; and who would never accept any other value. On the other side were a number of highly renowned American photosynthesis researchers, among others Robert EMERSON (1903-1959), James FRANCK (1882-1964) and Hans GAFFRON (1902-1979), who contested this value and argued, instead, that 8-12 light quanta were required for one molecule oxygen. This value is still accepted today. In this paper, the course of the controversy is reconstructed on the basis of numerous documents and correspondences that so far have not received much attention. The historically contingent factors will be analyzed that made this controversy so atrocious; however, I will argue that the dispute was not primarily about reputation and glory but in large parts driven by the keen interest of the scientific community to solve a difficult research question - notwiith standing the fact that WARBURG failed to comply with scientific conventions of methodical transparency and mutual.

[Illustrations of visceral referred pain. "Head-less" Head's zones]. / Illustrationen zum übertragenen Schmerz. Wie viel von Head steckt in den Head-Zonen?

Reviewing anatomical, physiological and neurological standard literature for illustrations of referred visceral pain only one type of illustration can frequently be found, which is referred to as Treves and Keith. In fact, the original illustration as a model for most current pictures stems from the German edition of Sir Frederick Treves' famous book "Surgical Applied Anatomy" from 1914, which was reillustrated for didactical reasons for the German readership. While neither Treves and Keith nor the German illustrator Otto Kleinschmidt ever published any work on referred pain this illustration must have been adapted or copied from older sources by the illustrator. Therefore the comprehensive systematic original works before 1914 were reviewed, namely those of Sir Henry Head and Sir James Mackenzie. Due to the name of the phenomenon in the German literature of Head's zones, the illustrations were expected to be based mainly on Head's work. However, a comparison of all available illustrations led to the conclusion that Kleinschmidt chiefly used information from Mackenzie as a model for his illustration. Due to the inexact reproduction of Mackenzie's work by the illustrator some important features were lost that had been reported by the original authors. These include the phenomenon of Head's maximum points, which nowadays has fallen into oblivion.Therefore current charts, based on the illustration by Kleinschmidt from 1914, lack experimental evidence and appear to be a simplification of the observational results of both Head's and Mackenzie's original systematic works.