Abstract
To the Editor: —In reference to the discussion of Bouillaud and Auburtin in the June 29 issue ofThe Journal(184:1024), Bouillaud's intrepid and immediate forerunnership—as well as Gall's—have never been disputed, least by Broca himself. And to fail to acquaint the reader with the difference between loss of speech due to destruction of both frontal lobes, preferably in toto, a la Bouillaud, and aphemia due to a lesion in the left third frontal convolution at its posterior end, a la Broca, is pure mischief. To state that Broca's area should be named after Bouillaud, who was very lukewarm in accepting its significance, makes nonsense of the whole recounting. Broca was at first commendably hesitant in matters of cerebral localizing, and he was looking for support by those who were not. But his clinical examination of Leborgne (not Laborgne) [Our typographical error—Ed] or (not Tan Tan) must
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
