On the Frozen Sections by Bumm and Blumreich and by Zangemeister. Is there a lower Uterine Segment? *

THE crux of Bumm and Blumreich’s argument is in the sentence quoted in the billet: “ I do not think that two different interpretations should be allowed. The only solution of the difference of opinion is that one of us (either Dr. Barbour or ourselves) is mistaken in his interpretation of the microscopic findings.” And to prove themselves right, they make me wrong in the interpretation of my microscopic findings. In self-defence I have disinterred the microscopic sections of some 18 years ago, and have had new photographs taken. “ Another Druce case ”-1 hear some Fellow of the Society wittily remark. It is, Gentlemen, and the evidence goes to show that, in this case at least, the Cervix did not masquerade a8 Lower Uterine Segment. While Bumm and Blumreich’s Paper, “ Ein neuer Qefrierschnitt durch die Leiche einer in der Austreibungsperiode verstorbenen Kreissenden und seine Bedeutung fiir die Lehre vom unteren Uterinaegment,” was read before the Gynscological Society in Berlin in November, 1905, the Atlas itself was not published till March, 1907, and only came into my hands last autumn. At the same time I received also Zangemeister’s Section of a case of Rupture of the Vterus. The two Sections I, therefore, consider together. In this paper I propose to give :I. A brief historical sketch of the present view regarding the