A History of Scientific English

1037 tumor on the host's biochemistry than is a study of the enzymes of the organ possessing the neoplasm. It would be most important to control these experiments with observations on animals with various non-neoplastic lesions. While the chemical alterations discussed in this present volume undoubtedly represent important changes in cell metabolism, they still remain, in the majority of cases, isolated facts, the mechanism of their initiation being unknown. In this connection it is peculiar that more work has not been done on the biochemistry of cancers of known etiology. In such tumors it might be easier to relate these changes to the presence of some causative agent, such as a virus. While this material would not necessarily aid one in learning how these alterations fit into carcinogenesis, it might give an inkling as to how these changes are brought about. There is no question but that this book stimulates thought and imagination, and presents much material which suggests problems for further investigation. These points plus the excellent bibliography make this volume a valuable contribution to oncology. A writer of textbooks must surely be aware of the fact that by some mischance his cherished text will finally reach the hands of some person wholly unfamilar with the subject matter and who feels, none the less, that some comment must be made. Undertaking to read a few pages of this book convinced the present reader that none of it was to be skipped. Furthermore, it became obvious that most if not all of the current jargon which makes up Medical writing can claim but a very uncertain ancestry. This text describes the derivation of many words whose history has been neglected. It is really a fascinating story and shows great erudition on the part of the author, nevertheless one becomes somewhat surprised to read "The parotid gland (para, beside, and otidos, ear) was a common sight of terminal infection in the epidemics of the Middle Ages, and for that reason the word came to mean an abscess." Or perhaps this is correct after all.