HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Casida, L. E. Articles by Niswender, G. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Casida, L. E. Articles by Niswender, G. D.

Discussion

University of Wisconsin, Madison

G. D. Niswender

University of Illinois, Urbana

Abstract

THE members of this symposium owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Melampy, Dr. Moor, and Dr. Hawk for thier careful and systematic examination of our knowledge of corpus luteum physiology. The important contribution each man has made to the field in his own right, if anything, may have made it harder for them to attain the objectivity and perspective they have shown.

We have now heard the uterus considered as to how it acts in absentia. We have heard also how it reacts to two kinds of guest, the IUD and the conceptus. In addition, consideration has benn given as to wether half a uterus is as good as a whole uterus, or as good as no uterus. As the situation now stands, there appears to be a state of: "to each side its own,"—its own uterus:its own ovary. A local effect may be important.

Various channels for the local action between the uterus and the ovary and partiality has been shown towards some kind of diffusion through the connecting tissues.