100 



Fred. J. Taussig 



Let ns uow see how this explanation agrees with the findings, clinical 

 and microscopic, that have been hronght forward by other observers. 



Considering in the first place the clinical evidence, we would em- 

 phasize the variations in the shape of the hymeneal orifice. This has, I 

 believe, not been given due importance. We have on the one hand 

 authors as Kagel ('97) and Klein ('94), who hold that the formation 

 of the hymen is passive, i. e., merely due to a bulging forward of the 

 vaginal bulb, particularly of the dorsal wall, into the urogenital sinus, 

 and a consequent thinning out of the intervening septum. On the other 



Fig. 7. Sagittal section about 1 mm. to tbe left of plane of Fig. 6. 

 Urethra and vulvo-vaginal fold are not to be seen in this section. No. 207. 

 H., hymen ; R., ventral wall of rectum ; S., sphincter ani muscle ; V., vagina. 

 Magnified 5 X. 



hand, some investigators, as Dohrn ('75) and Schaefer ('95), consider 

 its formation as active, i. e., a proliferation of connective tissue with 

 the production of a membrane more or less completely shutting off the 

 vagina from without. It seems to me the variations in position, shape 

 and size of the hymeneal orifice point distinctly to a proliferative process. 

 If we conceive the evolution as passive, we should expect a round or 

 oval orifice near the upper portion of the hymen. Such a view cannot 

 explain the cases of denticulate, cribriform and fimbriate hymens. Even 

 Klein takes for granted, in the last named form, a papillary growth 

 along the edge of the hymen. In other words, he claims the process is 



