The pathologist is not infallible in the diagnosis of skin lesions.

Abstract

In the Archives of Dermatology there recently appeared a reprint from the Archives of Internal Medicine of a constructively critical editorial by Dr. Arthur U. Desjardins "Is the Pathologist Infallible?" and a reply by Dr. William B. Wartman. 1 Dr. Desjardins discusses many reasons why even a competent pathologist cannot always be correct in his interpretation of tissue changes or his identification of tumors. Insofar as this problem relates to the pathology of the skin the pathologist cannot be infallible, and the reasons for his lack of unquestionable authority are both extrinsic and intrinsic. The chief extrinsic factor is his inability to control the material he receives for examination. Other extrinsic factors are discussed in my paper "Diagnostic Pitfalls of Dermal Pathology." 2 At the necropsy table the pathologist reigns supreme. In performing an unrestricted postmortem examination the pathologist, after studying the history of the case for orientation, is able