DIVERTICULITIS of the large bowel is of interest to the surgeon because of its ability to simulate other inflammatory conditions in the abdomen, including appendicitis, cholecystitis and acute pelvic inflammatory disease, as well as on account of its not infrequent demand for operative relief or radical cure. It is of interest to the internist because it requires to be differentiated from other causes of vague chronic or recurrent abdominal distress, and because it responds well, in its less acute phases, to medical treatment. It is, however, of even more interest to the roentgenologist, since only he is capable of making a definite diagnosis of this condition in the living patient and since this diagnosis often gives an unexpected and thoroughly satisfying solution to what may have been a puzzling clinical problem. In the recognition of this disease, as in other phases of abdominal X-ray diagnosis, the profession owes a considerable debt to Carman, who was the first roentgenologist to report a series of cases examined by the roentgen ray and the first to formulate a scheme for the recognition and differential diagnosis of diverticulosis. This condition was described from the pathological standpoint by Graser in 1899. In 1907, Mayo, Wilson and Giffin reported five cases which had been treated surgically. The first reported case examined by X-ray was one described by Abbe and examined roentgenologically by LeWald, reported in 1915. Carman's first report was published in 1915 and detailed three cases examined at the Mayo Clinic by X-ray. In the first two of these cases the condition was not recognized from the X-ray films, as Carman had concluded after examination of pathological specimens that it would be impossible to demonstrate diverticula by means of an opaque enema or meal. The characteristic shadows were, however, noted on the films and when the cases subsequently came to operation an extensive multiple diverticulosis was found in both patients. Carman promptly concluded that the small round extralumenal shadows noted must have been due to filled diverticula. The third case of this series had not come to operation at the time of the report, but showed perfectly typical shadows. Since that report, roentgenologists have been finding diverticulosis in an increasing percentage of patients undergoing routine gastro-intestinal examinations, as well as in patients having suggestive symptoms. Case estimates that one in eighty of his routine gastro-intestinal examinations shows diverticula, and our own records show at least as common an incidence as this. As with other more or less rare pathological conditions, the worker who is most zealous in the search for diverticulosis and most open to suggestions of its presence encounters it most frequently. True and false, acquired and congenital, diverticula are described in the literature.