This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Thomas L. Watt, MD; Otis F. Jillson, MD
Hitchcock Clinic Hanover, NH 03755

Arch Dermatol. 1964;90(4):454-455.

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

To the Editor:

It is surprising that standard definitions of most primary lesions have never been agreed upon by dermatologists. This became apparent to us in a recent departmental conference, when members of the same institution disagreed on the meanings of such elementary terms as macule, papule, nodule, tumor, vesicle, and bulla. Indeed, when we turned to various textbooks for substantiation, we found there was no unanimity of thought among the several authors as to the exact definitions of these "primary lesions." The situation has been compounded over the years because of the failure of the authorities (1) to concur in size limitations of most of the lesions, (2) to appreciate the dimension of depth intrinsic to nodules and tumors, and (3) to expand the terminology to include such lesions as patches and plaques.

For instance, most of the textbooks describe macules as circumscribed, nonelevated discolorations of the skin, of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?