Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:17:08.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XI.—A Previllous Human Ovum, aged Nine to Ten Days (The Davies-Harding Ovum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Francis Davies
Francis Davies
Affiliation:
Anatomy Department, University of Sheffield.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within recent years several human ova in the previllous stage of development have been discovered and their study, taken in conjunction with the detailed observations of Heuser and Streeter (1941) on the development of the macaque embryo, has resulted in fundamental modifications of the views previously held concerning the early development of the human embryo.

The outlook on early human embryology comprises three phases: first, the phase when only very few specimens had been discovered and the tentative conclusions drawn from their study were to a considerable extent merely surmised by analogy with the phenomena known to occur in the development of other animals; second, the phase where sufficient material has been acquired to enable investigators to verify or deny some of these postulations and even to suspect certain possibilities—like variations in the degree of development of the various elements in embryos of approximately the same age such as is known to occur in other mammals, or early histological changes indicating pathological relations between the embryonic and maternal structures which may foreshadow the failure of continued embryono-maternal relations and impending abortion; and third, a phase when the specimens will be so numerous that the conclusions of the earlier periods can be established with certainty or definitely refuted. At present, early human embryological study is in the second phase, and the early attainment of the third phase is desirable to fill gaps in the present knowledge of the stages in the development of several structures (e.g. the yolk-sac, the amnio-embryonic vesicle, etc.) and to determine details necessary for a more precise comparison of the development of the human ovum with that of other primate and of lower vertebrate forms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , 1947 , pp. 315 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Altmann, M., Knowles, E., and Bull, H. D., 1941. “A psychosomatic study of the sex cycle in women,” Psychosom. med., III, 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asdell, S. A., 1927. “Time of conception and of ovulation in relation to the menstrual cycle,” Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc., LXXXIX, 509–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beewer, J. I., 1938. “A human embryo in the bilaminar blastodisc stage (The Edwards-Jones-Brewer ovum),” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXVII, no. 162, 85–93.Google Scholar
Bryce, T. H., and Teacher, J. H., 1908. “An early ovum imbedded in the decidua,” in Contributions to the study of the early development of the human ovum, Glasgow, 1908, pp. 7–66.Google Scholar
Burr, H. S., and Musselman, L. K., 1938. “Bio-electric correlates of the menstrual cycle in women,” Amer. Journ. Obst. Gynecol., XXXV, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dible, J. H., and West, C. M., 1941. “A human ovum at the previllous stage,” Journ. Anat. Lona., LXXV, 269–281.Google Scholar
Elder, J. H., Hartman, C. G., and Heuser, C. H., 1938. “A ten and one-half day chimpanzee embryo, ‘Yerkes A’,” Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc., CXI, pt. 3, 1156–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H. M., and Swezy, O., 1931. “The uterus-ovary relationship and its bearing on the time of ovulation in primates,” Amer. Journ. Physiol., XCVI, 628–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, L., 1924. “Physiologie der weiblichen genital Organe,” in Halban-Seitz: Biologie und Pathologie des Weibes, 1924, I, 517.Google Scholar
Grosser, O., 1922. “Zur kenntnis der Trophoblastschale bei jungen menschlichen Eiern,” Zeits. Anat. Entwicklungsgesch., LXVI, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. J., 1944. “Phases of maturation and fertilization in human ova,” Journ. Anat. Lond., LXXVIII, 1–4.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J., Barnes, J., and Dodds, G. H., 1943. “Phases of maturation, fertilization and early development in man,” Journ. Obst. Gynœcol. Brit. Emp., L, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertig, A. T., and Rock, J., 1941. “Two human ova of the previllous stage, having an ovulation age of about eleven and twelve days respectively,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXIX, no. 184, 127–156.Google Scholar
Heuser, C. H., 1932. “An intrachorionic mesothelial membrane in young stages of the monkey (Macacus rhesus),” Anat. Rec., LII, suppl., 15–16.Google Scholar
Heuser, C. H., 1938. “Early development of the primitive mesoblast in embryos of the rhesus monkey,” Co-operation in research, Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. 501, 383–388.Google Scholar
Heuser, C. H., 1940. “The chimpanzee ovum in the early stages of implantation (about 101 days),” Journ. Morphol., LXVI, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuser, C. H., and Streeter, G. L., 1941. “Development of the macaque embryo,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXIX, no. 181, 15–55.Google Scholar
Knaus, H., 1929. “Ueber den Zeitpunkt der Konzeptionsfähigkeit des Weibes im Intermenstruum,” Münch. med. Wchnschr., LXXVI, 1157–1160.Google Scholar
Knaus, H., 1931 a. “Über den Zeitpunkt der Konzeptionsfähigkeit des Weibes,” Arch. Gynäkol., CXLVI, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaus, H., 1931 b. “Ueber den Zeitpunkt der Konzeptionsfähigkeit des Weibes,” Münch. med. Wchnschr., LXXVIII, 344–347.Google Scholar
Knaus, H., 1934. Periodic Fertility and Sterility in Woman (Trans, by Kitchin, and Kitchin, ), Vienna, 1934, pp. 60–80.Google Scholar
Krafka, J. jr, 1941. “The Torpin ovum, a presomite human embryo,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXIX, no. 186, 169–193.Google Scholar
Krafka, J., 1942 a. “A free human tubai ovum in a late cleavage stage,” Anat. Rec., LXXXII, 426.Google Scholar
Krafka, J., 1942 b. Human Embryology, Hoeber, N.Y., and London, 1942, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
Krafka, J., 1942 c. Human Embryology, Hoeber, N.Y., and London, 1942, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. H., 1931. “A human tubal egg, unfertilized,” Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull., XLVIII, 368–372.Google Scholar
Linzenmeier, G., 1914. “Ein junges menschliches Ei in situ,” Arch. Gynäkol., CII, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, J. E., 1940. “Menstruation in intraocular endometrial transplants in the rhesus monkey,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXVIII, no. 177, 221–308.Google Scholar
Martin, C. P., and Falkiner, N. McI., 1938. “The Falkiner ovum,” Amer. Journ. Anat., LXIII, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B. J., Engel, G. C., and Reimann, S. P., 1938. “Studies of unfertilized human tubal ova. No. 2: Anatomic observation of three with remarks on ovulatory time,” Growth, II, 381–388.Google Scholar
Miller, J. W., 1913. “Corpus luteum und Schwangerschaft. Das jüngste operativ erhaltene menschliche Ei,” Berl. klin. Wchnschr., no. 19, 1–15.Google Scholar
Möllendorff, W. v., 1921. “Ueber das jüngste bisher bekannte menschliche Abortivei (Ei Seh.). Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Einbettung des menschlichen Eies,” Zeits. Anat. Entwicklungsgesch., LXII, 352–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S., 1930. “Ein jüngstes menschliches Ei,” Zeits. mikr.-anat. Forsch., XX, 175–184.Google Scholar
Novak, E., 1941 a. Gynecological and Obstetrical Pathology. Saunders, Philadelphia and London, 1941, pp. 110–122.Google Scholar
Novak, E., 1941 b. Gynecological and Obstetrical Pathology. Saunders, Philadelphia and London, 1941, pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
Ogino, K., 1930. “Ovulationstermin und Konzeptionstermin,” Zentralbl. Gynäkol., LIV, 464–479.Google Scholar
Ogino, K., 1932. “Über den Konzeptionstermin des Weibes und seine Anwendung in der Praxis,” Zentralbl. Gynäkol., LVI, 721–732.Google Scholar
Ogino, K., 1934. Conception Period in Women (trans, by Mujagawa, Y.). Harrisburg, Medical Arts Co., 1934.Google Scholar
Peters, H., 1899. Ueber die Einbettung des menschlichen Eies und das früheste bisher bekannte menschliche Placentationstadium. Deuticke, Leipzig and Vienna, 1899.Google Scholar
Pincus, G., and Saunders, B., 1937. “Unfertilized human tubal ova,” Anat. Rec., LXIX, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyde, J., 1941. “A contribution to the study of human fertility,” Brit. Med. Journ., I, 12–13.Google Scholar
Ramsey, E. M., 1938. “The Yale embryo,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXVII, no. 161, 67–84.Google Scholar
Rock, J., and Hertig, A. T., 1942. “Some aspects of early human development,” Amer. Journ. Obst. Gynecol., XLIV, 973–982. (With corrections in same journal, 1943, XLV, 356.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, R., 1915. “Anatomische Studien zur normalen und pathologischen Physiologie des Menstruationszyklus,” Arch. Gynäkol, CIV, 27–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scipiades, E. Jr, 1938. “Young human ovum detected in uterine scraping,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXVII, no. 163, 97–106.Google Scholar
Seymour, F. I., 1939. “Sterile motile spermatozoa, proved by clinical experimentation,” Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc., CXII, 1817–1819.Google Scholar
Shaw, W., 1925. “The relation of ovarian function to menstruation,” Journ. Physiol., LX, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, W., 1941. Textbook of Gyncecology, Churchill, London, 1941, pp. 56–62.Google Scholar
Smith, G. P., 1942. “Further data concerning human fertility,” Brit. Med. Journ., II, 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stieve, H., 1931. “Die Dottersackbildung beim Ei des Menschen,” Verhandl. anat. Gesellsch., Anat. Anz. Ergänzungsheft, LXXII, 44–56.Google Scholar
Stieve, H., 1936. “Ein ganz junges, in der Gebärmutter erhaltenes menschliches Ei (Keimling Werner),” Zeits. mikr.-anat. Forsch., XL, 281–322.Google Scholar
Streeter, G. L., 1926. “The ‘Miller’ ovum—the youngest normal human embryo thus far known,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XVIII, no. 92, 31–48.Google Scholar
Streeter, G. L., 1933. Annual Report Director Department Embryology Carnegie Institution for 1932–33, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
Streeter, G. L., 1937 a. “Origin of the yolk-sac in primates,” Anat. Rec., LXX, suppl. 1, 53–54.Google Scholar
Streeter, G. L., 1937 b. “Origin of gut endoderm in macaque embryos,” Anat. Rec., LXX, suppl. 3, 76.Google Scholar
Streeter, G. L., 1939. “A new profile reconstruction of the Miller ovum,” Anat. Rec., LXXIII, suppl. 2, 75.Google Scholar
Weinstock, F., 1934. “Das zeitliche Verhalten von Ovulations- und Konzeptionstermin an Hand von 416 Fällen mit genau Bekannter einmaliger Kohabitation und nachfolgender Schwangerschaft,” Zentralbl. Gynäkol., LVIII, 2947–2952.Google Scholar
Wislocki, G. B., and Streeter, G. L., 1938. “On the placentation of the macaque (Macaca mulatta), from the time of implantation until the formation of the definitive placenta,” Contrib. Embryol. Carnegie Inst. Wash., XXVII, no. 160, 1–66.Google Scholar