[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]
June 3, 1933


Author Affiliations

Director, Institute of Pathology, Western Pennsylvania Hospital

JAMA. 1933;100(22):1794. doi:10.1001/jama.1933.02740220060033

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 The Journal, April 29, page 1342, is a brief review of our studies on the tubercle bacillus (Mellon, R. R.; Richardson, R. D., and Fisher, L. W.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. & Med.30:80 [Oct.] 1932. Lindegren, C. C., and Mellon, R. R., ibid.30:110 [Oct.] 1932. Mellon, R. R.; Richardson, R. D., and Fisher, L. W.: J. Bact.24:45 [Jan.] 1933). I feel sure that the reviewer did not intend to leave the impression that we had postulated the existence of morphologically distinct male and female sex cells. But since this impression has been conveyed to me from others, permit me to interpret these studies as follows: The sexual mechanism suggested (not proved) is that of an autogamous fusion (Lindegren, C. C., and Mellon, R. R.: J. Bact.25:47 [Jan.] 1933), one of the lowest orders of sexuality, in contrast to

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