Search

The literature contains numerous reports of women who have had a large number of multiple births. Probably the most frequently cited is that mentioned by Geissler1 concerning Mary Austin, who, during thirty-three years of married life, is said to have borne forty-four children, thirteen pairs of twins and six sets of triplets. One sister of this mother is reported to have had twenty-six children and another forty-one. In addition to what must have been her principal occupation. Mary Austin apparently found time to acquire a doctor's degree.An even more remarkable case is that reported by Boer2 of a Viennese woman who bore thirty-two children in eleven births. In the third month of her twelfth pregnancy her abdomen was described as being as large as that of a normal woman at term. This reference to the size of her abdomen suggests that she was well on the way

In the literature of both anthropology and obstetrics, the pelvis of the white woman is described as having an inlet the transverse diameter of which is considerably larger than the anteroposterior, or conjugate, diameter. The pelvic index, i. e. the ratio of the anteroposterior to the transverse diameter of the inlet × 100, is said to be less than 90 in white women, who are, accordingly, classed as platypellic. Pelves with a relatively larger anteroposterior diameter and with a pelvic index ranging from 90 to 94.9 are classed as the mesatipellic type. Those with an index of 95 or more, the dolichopellic type, are supposed to be characteristic of what are frequently referred to as the "more primitive" races. Thus, according to data compiled by Martin,1 Negroes, Melanesians and Tasmanians are mesatipellic, while Bushwomen, Hottentots, Australians and Malays are dolichopellic.In a paper by Dr. Hans Scheyer2 on

TO THE EDITOR:— The increasing difficulty of attracting able young men and women into the field of preclinical science teaching and research has become a matter of grave concern to many medical educators. Several factors have contributed to producing this state of affairs. The interruption of graduate training by the war, which will quite possibly be continued by some form of compulsory military service during the postwar years, is one cause of the present shortage of potential preclinical teachers, but it is not the most important one. To an even greater extent the reluctance of outstanding young people to enter this field is due to the inadequate salaries which are paid basic science teachers in the majority of our medical schools.There is no lack of able young men and women who are, or who could be, interested in preclinical teaching and research as a career. It is a rare