[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
January 31, 1966

Philo Phylo Phyllo

Author Affiliations

San Jose, Calif

Kansas City, Mo

JAMA. 1966;195(5):395. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100050103036

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  I would like to ask George X. Trimble, MD, a serious question. How can a philogist writing appositely about phylogeny vs phyllogeny (194:236, 1965) overlook philogyny? Can it be he's not?Orchids, of the phyllogenous variety, to Dr. Walworth for reminding us that "unto the man is a woman." As one who admits to philodemic beliefs and to being a philogeant, I must of necessity confess to philogynous traits. Philogynist, yes. Philogist, no. Philanderer, No.A confirmed bachelor, such as I, though blessed with philogynic inclinations must nevertheless plead mobility and agility to explain his non-nubility.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview