This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Dermatologic description is important because it enables us to describe accurately and document what we see and to communicate these descriptions to others. By characterizing lesions via morphologic similarity, one may also gain a clue to underlying similarities in pathologic features. Consequently, effective terms should be comprehensive and flexible enough to differentiate among the morphologic configurations one is likely to encounter and intuitive enough to be agreed on by those using them. Ideally, the gross morphologic terms should also have some correspondence to relevant underlying pathologic features. With this in mind I would like to comment on a recent letter to the ARCHIVES in which Lewis et al¹ revived a much-needed discussion on the terms of basic dermatologic lesions.

Citing the definitions proposed by Watt and Jillson,² these authors have offered their suggestions for improvement. They proposed the use of the term mass as a replacement for the often misinterpreted . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Wheal: To Be or Not to Be
Vazquez-Lopez et al.
Arch Dermatol 2001;137:94-95.
FULL TEXT