Abstract
It is clear that the human penis is as individual as a fingerprint, so that no two are alike. Some of the variations have been used as justifications for circumcision, but are they common or genuinely pathological? And can the modern standardized methods (“one size fits all”) provide a predictable result in the face of such variation or any therapeutic value? Three of these variations will be reviewed for their nature and significance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cowper W. Myotomia Reformata: Or, A New Administration of all the Muscles of Human Bodies. London: Sam. Smith and Benj. Alford, 1694. pp. 228–9.
Montagu A. Edward Tyson MD and the rise of human and comparative anatomy in England. Mem Am Philos Soc 1943;20:206.
Littre A. Description de l'urDennistonthre de l'homme. Histoire de l'Acadèmie royale des sciences avec les Mémoires de mathematique et de physique. Paris: n.p. (1700), 1719. pp. 311–6.
Keith A, Shillitoe A. The preputial or odoriferous glands of man. Lancet 1904;1:146–8.
Hyman AB, Brownstein MH. Tyson's “glands”: ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969;99:31–6.
Parkash S, Jeyakumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973;110:211–2.
McGrath KA. The frenular delta: a new preputial structure. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (Eds). Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a MultiDimensional Problem. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 2001. pp. 199–206.
Tyson E. Orang-outang, sive, Homo Sylvestris: or The Anatomy of the Pygmie compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape and a Man: with an Essay Concerning the Pygmies, the Cynocephali, the Satyrs and Sphinges of the Ancients. London: Thomas Bennet and Daniel Brown, 1699 (a review of this book and its 2nd edition may be viewed at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/bomarch/bomnovdec.html)
Cold CJ, McGrath KA. Anatomy and histology of the penile and clitoral prepuce in primates: evolutionary perspective of specialised sensory tissue of the external genitalia. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (Eds). Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 1999. pp. 19–29.
Fordyce JA. A peculiar affection of the mucous membrane of the lips and oral cavity. J Cutan Dis 1896;14:413–9.
Monteil RA. Les grains de Fordyce: maladie, heterotopie ou adenome? Etude histologique et ultrastructurale. J Biol Buccale 1981;9:109–28.
Dreher A, Grevers G. Fordyce-Flecken. Ein wenig beachteter befund im bereich des lippen-rotes und der mundschleimhaut. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 1995;74:390–2.
Goeckerman WH. Fordyce's condition of the penis. Arch Derm Syph 1926;14:50.
Piccinno R, Carrel CF, Menni S, et al. Preputial ectopic sebaceous glands mimicking mol-luscum contagiosum. Arch Dermatol Venerol 1990;70:344.
Saalfeld E. Ueber die Tyson'schen drüsen. Arch Mikr Anat 1898;53:212–8.
Massmanian A, Valls GS, Sempere FJV. Fordyce spots on the glans penis. Br J Dermatol 1995;133:498–500.
Carson HJ, Massa M, Reddy V. Sebaceous gland hyperplasia of the penis. J Urol 1996;156: 1441.
Prakash S, Rao R, Venkatesan K, Ramakrishnan S. Sub-preputial wetness: it [sic.] nature. Ann Natl Med Sci (India) 1982;18:109–12.
Van Howe RS, Hodges FM. The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venerol 2006;20:1046–54.
Littre A, Morgagni GB. French Academy of Sciences report. Padua: Adversaria Anatomica, 1700. p. 307.
Johnson BL, Baxter DL. Pearly penile papules. Arch Dermatol 1964;90:166–7.
Glicksman JM, Freeman RG. Pearly penile papules: a statistical study of incidence. Arch Dermatol 1966;93:56–9.
Buschke A, Gumpert H. Die papillen an der corona glandis in vergleichendanatomischer und ethnologischer beziehung. Arch f Frauenk 1925;11:43–55.
Buschke A. Über die bedentung der “papillen” der corona glandis. Klin Med 1909;5: 1621–3.
Sonnex C, Dockerty WG. Pearly penile papules: a common cause of concern. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10:726–7.
Agrawal SK, Bhattacharya SN, Singh N. Pearly penile papules: a review. Int J Dermatol 2004;43:199–201.
Hogewoning CJA, Bleeker MCG, van den Brule AJC, Voorhorst FJ, van Andel RE, Risse EK, Starink TM, Meijer CJLM. Pearly penile papules: still no reason for uneasiness. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:50–4.
Rufli T, Eichenberger P, Heer K. Papillomatosis coronae glandis. Haufigkeit und klinisches bild. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1978;108:229–31.
Dickinson RL. Human Sex Anatomy: A Topographical Hand Atlas. 2nd edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1949.
Hodges FM. The history of phimosis from antiquity to the present. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (Eds). Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 1999. pp. 37–62.
Darby R. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin & the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Bland-Sutton J. Circumcision as a rite and as a surgical operation. Br Med J 1907;1:1408–12. Cited inter alii in Ref 31, p. 228.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McGrath, K. (2009). Variations in Penile Anatomy and Their Contribution to Medical Mischief. In: Denniston, G.C., Hodges, F.M., Milos, M.F. (eds) Circumcision and Human Rights. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9167-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9167-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9166-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9167-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)