68 



was room for legitimate difference of opinion about any one of these 

 and in fact, different pathologists who have examined sections oJ 

 these tumors have expressed different opinions as to the nature oi 

 the growths. 



REFERENCES. 



1. Hanau (Fortsch. der Med., vol. 7, 1889, May 1, p. 321). 



2. Herzog (Journal Med. Research, 1902, vol. 8, old series, p. 74). 



3. Loeb (Journal Med. Research, 1901, vol. 6, p. 28; also vol. 3, p. 44, and vol. 17, 



p. 299). 



4. Flexner and Jobling (Journal Am. Med. Assn., 1907, vol. 48, p. 420). 



5. Gaylord and Clowes (Journal Am. Med. Assn., 1907, vol. 48, p. 15). 



6. Tyzzer (Journal Am. Med. Assn., 1906, vol. 47, p. 1237). 



7. Loeb (Univ. of Pa. Med. Bull., 1907, vol. 19, No. 5). 



8. Tyzzer (Journal Med. Research, vol. 17, No. 2, p. 155). 



9. Ehrlich and Apolant (Berl. klin. Woch., 1907, vol. 44, pp. 399 and 1401). 



10. Saul (Centralblatt fur. Bact., etc., Aug. 27, 1907, vol. 47). 



11. Saul (Centralblatt fur Bact., etc., 1909, vol. 49, p. 4). 



12. Tyzzer (Journal Med. Research, vol. 17, No. 2, p. 137). 



13. Simon (International Clinic, vol. 2, 18th series). 



14. Haaland (Berlin, klin. Woch., 1907, vol. 44, p. 73). 



15. Ehrlich, Apolant and Haaland (1906, Berlin, klin. Woch., vol. 43, No. 2). 



16. Gay (1909, Journal Med. Research, Vol. XX, No. 2). 



17. Brooks (1907, Am. Jour, of Med. Sciences, Vol. CXXXIII). 



