[Skip to Navigation]
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.
July 1964


Author Affiliations

Chairman, Division of Oral Pathology School of Dentistry University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minn 55414

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;72(1):149-150. doi:10.1001/archopht.1964.00970020149032

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 his otherwise excellent and valuable article (Arch Ophthal 71:187-192, 1964), Dr. F. D. Gillespie either has committed a rather gross error in his interpretation of the family pedigree illustrated or has incorrectly drawn the pedigree. In his Fig 1, he shows ten children issuing from a brother-sister mating. If, in fact, this is true—and I sincerely doubt he meant this—then his statement under Fig 1 makes no sense, viz, "Since there was a history of consanguinity in the maternal grandparents an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance is likely." As illustrated, consanguinity could have no effect unless the probands' father and mother were related through this consanguinous mating. To further compound this reader's confusion, Dr. Gillespie stated on page 192: "Consanguinity was noted in the maternal grandparents, but the degree was not determined." This statement would surely suggest that the pedigree is incorrectly composed, since this is

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