Charles-Sedgwick Minot 259 



In tlio fourth edition (1901) of ]\Ierkel-Henle's Grimdriss, there is, 1, 

 a general account, which is distinctly not morphological in character; 

 2, detailed description of the surfaces and topography; 3, of the histology. 



Gegenbaur in the seventli edition of his Anatomy (1899) proceeds very 

 differently, for he has strong morphological inclinations. He gives, 1, 

 the general account of the development of the liver; 2, general account 

 of the surfaces, including the division into the chief lobes; 3, the relation 

 of the veins to the omentum and the falciform ligament. Gegenbaur is 

 the only author of a text-ljook of human anatomy, known to me, who gives 

 a distinctly morphological account of thq human liver, but even his pre- 

 sentation of the subject leaves much to be desired, chiefly because his 

 knowledge of embryology was meagre, and quite insufficient for an ade- 

 quate interpretation. 



It would be easy to analyze descriptions in other text-books, but 

 enough has been presented to show that they are usually characterized 

 by certain common tendencies. The authors dwell upon the position and 

 shape of the liver, seeking to emphasize its exact form, but not endeavor- 

 ing at all to emphasize the essential characteristics of the organ, or to 

 bring out the significance of its parts in a manner satisfactory to either 

 an embryologist, a physiologist, a morphologist, or a pathologist. With 

 the exception of Gegenbaur, none of the accounts rises above the level of 

 sheer description.^ They simply perpetuate the tradition inherited from 

 the time when human anatomy Avas only the description of what was 

 actually found in the human adult. That tradition has undoubtedly been 

 in part maintained by the demands of surgeons, whose interest is necessa- 

 rily chiefly given to the exact determination of the topographical divisions 

 in the body, hence the influence of the surgeons, when dominant in the 

 anatomical laboratory, has often exerted an influence unfavorable to the 

 becoming maintenance of a scientific spirit, such as we ought to insist upon 

 for the sake alike of anatomy and medicine. 



If we review collective!}- the brief analyses just given of the actual 

 descriptions in the text-books, we realize at once that those points, which 

 the genesis of the liver reveals to us as fundamental, are scarcely heeded 

 by the authors whom we have reviewed. This is not a fitting occasion to 

 attempt a new description of the liver, and I can merely indicate to you 

 the principal points upon which a scientific description ought, in my 

 opinion, to be based. No little study and care woidd be necessary to work 

 out practically the suggestions, embodied in the following schedule. In- 

 deed, the schedule can doubtless be improved by others. 



In order to prepare an adequate description of the liver, we must begin 

 by laying aside certain bad habits which we have inherited and have 



