The condition was named
dyshidrosis by the British dermatologist
William Tilbury Fox in 1873, in a clinical lecture wherein he presented it as "a disordered condition of the sweat-follicles and the sweat-function... which is, as a rule, diagnosed as eczema, but is a separate and distinct affair... I have termed the disease , because nature seems to have a difficulty in getting rid of the secreted sweat, which remains to distend the follicles, and to macerate the tissues." His theory that the condition was related to sweat was soon observed as unproven in scholarly publication The condition had already been described clinically in a lecture in 1871 by
Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, who had named it
cheiro-pompholyx. Hutchinson's work was based on his observations, in 1864, of the same woman patient who Tilbury Fox would later describe in his own lecture. In 1875 Hutchinson published his book
Illustrations of Clinical Surgery, describing the condition of "cheiro-pompholyx" without making reference to Tilbury Fox's work. This led to a dispute between the two dermatologists, played out in letters to
The Lancet. Tilbury Fox was aggrieved that his reading of Hutchinson's lecture suggested it to imply Hutchinson had been the first to formally describe the condition. Hutchinson apologised, saying that he had been in too much of a hurry to publish to read Tilbury Fox's work, and being aware that Tilbury Fox had described it as a sweating disorder, he had considered it to be a different condition to the one he was writing about. In the same letter he chastised Tilbury Fox for claiming propriety over describing the vesicles as resembling "a
sago grain", a comparison that he had also independently made, and noted that the subject of his lecture in 1871 had been his patient for several years before Tilbury Fox's lecture. After a paper by Dr. A. R. Robinson describing the condition, entitled "Pompholyx" and mentioning the dispute, was published in the
Archives of Dermatology the following year, Tilbury Fox responded with a strident critique of Robinson's conclusions and accused him of having misrepresented the facts of the dispute. ==See also==