A monograph has the advantage of being able to devote more space to the discussion of a special subject than is possible in a textbook or a system. In the present volume, the use of diagrams would have saved much superfluous description, especially in the chapters on embryology, anatomy, pathology and the methods of examination. In the first named, there is only brief reference to the work of Lowsley, which has greatly changed the views of the majority of urologists as to the development of the prostate. The space devoted to comparative anatomy could be better assigned to a more detailed description of the various forms of prostatic enlargement, and more illustrations of drawings of specimens and of cystoscopic views from the very large material at the disposal of the authors. There is no reference to the recent studies of Tandler and Zuckerkandl on the two principal types; namely, an
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1923 study studied this question.