Ten years ago I presented before this section a paper in which for the first time attention was called to the morphologic instability of cutaneous lesions and to the difference between the static and the dynamic conception of cutaneous morphology. Since then, personal clinical experience and a study of the literature have increasingly confirmed my conviction of the correctness of the dynamic point of view.
Of all the elements of dermatologic research, none has shown such astounding growth as morphology. Fed by an endless stream of clinical observations, an ever increasing number of morphologic types and subdivisions have been described. An ever increasing refinement and multiplication of morphologic details are being used in describing and identifying individual dermatoses. As a result dermatologic nomenclature and classification have become so immense and complicated as to be a source of despair and bewilderment to the general practitioner and, what is
SCHOLTZ M. DYNAMICS OF CUTANEOUS MORPHOLOGYAN ANALYTIC STUDY. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1936;33(4):605–623. doi:10.1001/archderm.1936.01470100002001