In Reply.—Dr Goodhue makes two points to which we shall address ourselves. The first involves the quagmire of syndromic nomenclature. In order to avoid becoming bogged down in semantics, we shall simply omit any attempt to define the qualities of "basic conditions" of syndromes. We admit that we might have minimized our infringement had we used the term "oligohydramnios tetrad" or anomalad. It was our opinion, however, that the term "Potter syndrome" would be better able to evoke an image of the subject matter and attract interested readers. Warkany2 has eloquently addressed himself to these points, noting that eponymic nomenclature has the advantages of evoking images of signs and symptoms, can be expanded or contracted as necessary, and is independent of etiology and thus can subsume changing ideas thereof.
The second point deals with our failure to report the presence or absence of vernix granulomatosis or amnion nodosum.
ALAN G. FANTEL, THOMAS H. SHEPARD. Potter Syndrome-Reply. Am J Dis Child. 1976;130(7):781. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1976.02120080103021