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: Dr. Gorlin's letter (Amer J Dis Child110:226 [Aug] 1965), commenting on Dr. Silverman's remarks (Amer J Dis Child109:392 [May] 1965) concerning the nature of the limp of Hephaestus, prompts me to write this short note which I should have written some time ago. Dr Silverman suggested that Bes was an achondroplastic, Ptah a pseudoachondroplastic, and Hephaestus a diastrophic dwarf. While I was amused by Dr. Silverman's very ingenious differential diagnosis, I would like to question it because I should not like these very subtle and ingenious distinctions to be used as labels where categorization is difficult, if not impossible. Is it likely that the ancient Egyptians really did distinguish an achondroplastic (Bes) from a pseudoachondroplastic (Ptah) dwarf, or can there be given another explanation of Ptah's apparent deviation from the classical features of the achondroplastic dwarf? I prefer the following interpretation.
ATERMAN K. WHY DID HEPHAESTUS LIMP?. Am J Dis Child. 1965;110(6):704-705. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1965.02090030732028