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:
—In reference to the discussion of Bouillaud and Auburtin in the June 29 issue of The Journal (184:1024), Bouillaud's intrepid and immediate forerunnership—as well as Gall's—have never been disputed, least by Broca himself. And to fail to acquaint the reader with the difference between loss of speech due to destruction of both frontal lobes, preferably in toto, à la Bouillaud, and aphemia due to a lesion in the left third frontal convolution at its posterior end, à la Broca, is pure mischief. To state that Broca's area should be named after Bouillaud, who was very lukewarm in accepting its significance, makes nonsense of the whole recounting.Broca was at first commendably hesitant in matters of cerebral localizing, and he was looking for support by those who were not. But his clinical examination of Leborgne (not "Laborgne") [Our typographical error—Ed] or Tan (not "Tan Tan") must
Schiller F. Broca and Bouillaud. JAMA. 1963;186(7):733. doi:10.1001/jama.1963.03710070135021