The same complaint was made hy Dantscha- 

 koff (1908b) against the use of Mood from cases 

 of leukemia and other blood diseases as source 

 material for estaljlishing the normal. She says 

 (p. 477),". . . NachnieinerMeinungistesz. B. 

 heute bei der verwirrenden Menge von einzelnen, 

 nicht systematischen Beobachtungen geradezu 

 aussichtslos, aus Beobachtungen an krankliaft 

 verandertem Blut des erwachsenen Menschen z. 

 B. bei den verschiedenen Leukamien etc.. auf die 

 normale Entstehung und die Verwandtschaft der 

 verschiedenen Blutzellenformen zu schliessen, 

 wie es jetzt von vielen tatsachlich gemacht 



rd." ' 



wi 



TERMINOLOGY 



One of the big problems in morphologic hema- 

 tology is the choice of an acceptable terminology. 

 Theories of hematology liave influenced the ter- 

 minology and for the early stages, at least, each 

 school has its own set of names. This fact makes 

 a selection of working terminology, independent 

 of any particular theory, often impossible to find. 

 The reader should bear in mind, therefore, that 

 when a particular term is applied to a cell, the 

 authors have selected it without any implication 

 that they favor the theory of hematopoiesis com- 

 monly associated with the term. No single in- 

 vestigator has been able to encompass the whole 

 field of hematology from his own researches, and 

 the terms he uses in his own studies are influ- 

 enced by the appearance of the cells as revealed 

 by the particular technics he has used. Were 

 one unbiased person able to thoroughly review 

 the wliole hematologic picture of the normal and 

 abnormal of the embryo and of the adult for 

 just one species of reptile, bird, or manunal, by 

 sectioned tissue, by smear method, and by vital 

 technic. supplemented Ijy tissue culture, prolj- 

 ably all conflicting theories could be merged into 

 a uniform concept of hematopoiesis in health and 

 disease. A similar thought was expressed by 

 Doan (1932) when he said, ". . . It is agreed 

 tliat all [l)lood cells] take their first beginnings 

 from the mesenchymal cells of tlie mesodermal 



'Translation: In my opinion, it is tlo\vnrif;lit hopeless, for 

 instance to draw conclusions about the normal origin and 

 the relationships of the various blood cell forms from today's 

 bewildering mass of separate unsystematic observations of 

 pathologically altered blood of adults in various leukemias, for 

 example: but this is actually done today by many students. 



layer in the embryo. But thereafter the theories 

 and hypotheses diverge more or less radically, 

 though I would venture to assert that the dif- 

 ferences arise more in the interpretation than in 

 opposing objective observations, where experi- 

 ments have paralleled in materials and methods." 

 A sui-vey of coiuparative hematology by Jordan 

 ( 1938) brings out the point that regardless of the 

 wide differences in form and habitat from fish to 

 man, tlie general blood patterns are remarkably 

 constant and similar. 



Kindred (1940), using the rat, illustrated the 

 appearance of the same cell type as seen by the 

 section and by the smear metliod. This work 

 brought out clearly the difference in appearance 

 of the nuclei of cells by these two different tech- 

 nics. A still more striking comparison was made 

 by Kirschbaum and Downey (1937) when they 

 placed some of Maximow's drawings (1909) de- 

 rived from celloidin sectioned material beside 

 drawings of corresponding cells made from air- 

 dried smears. The material for both came from 

 14-day-old rabbit embryos. The wide differ- 

 ences in cell identification and even terminology 

 that can be attributable largely to the different 

 appearance of similar cells in two different tech- 

 nics is provocative. Our own studies on cell 

 identification agree closely with those of Kirsch- 

 bauiu and Downey, except that we have avoided 

 the use of the term "megaloblast" because of the 

 controversy associated with the identity of the 

 cell and the correct usage of the term (Jones, 

 1943). 



Kracke and Gai-ver (1937) and Osgood and 

 Ashworth (1937) emphasize in their atlases the 

 need for staiulardized terminology and in the first 

 of the books mentioned, the origins of the words 

 coiumonly and uncommonly used are discussed 

 rather fully. Exact terminology often moves 

 contrary to siiuplified terminology. Proposals 

 made by a conmiittee for standardized terminol- 

 ogy are highly commendable (Anonymous, 

 1949), but the names proposed are specifically 

 adapted to luan and are not broad enough to 

 fulfill entirely the needs for terminology in other 

 classes of vertebrates. Although a serious ef- 

 fort has been made by the authors to fit the 

 terminology of the bird into the exact framework 

 designed for clinical medicine of the human, 

 the effort did not succeed aiul one cannot avoid 

 the conclusion that any satisfactory universal 

 terminologv should be broad enough to include 



8 



