Disputes Surrounding the Discovery of the Stapes in the Mid 16th Century

Abstract

The discovery of the stapes in the mid 16th century remains a subject of controversy in medical literature, even if most historians credit the Italian Ingrassia, in 1546, for this discovery. The aim of this study is to discuss previously published works, to add additional insight and interpretation to them, and to finally discuss the veracity of this accreditation to Ingrassia. Between 1546 and 1564, Jimeno, Collado, Valverde, Colombo, Lusitanus, Paré, Falloppio, Eustachio, and Vesalius described this ossicle in their respective publications, and Ingrassia only in his posthumous one in 1603. A step by step chronology of the narrated and published events demonstrates that Ingrassia could be the first to have discovered and mentioned the stapes in public lectures in 1546, but Jimeno is the first to publish it in 1549. The discovery of the stapes will remain a subject of controversy, until new, previously unknown documents, demonstrate the contrary.

Ear ossicle morphology of the Jurassic euharamiyidan Arboroharamiya and evolution of mammalian middle ear

“…As briefly reviewed by Meng and Hou (), the homology of the stapes still remains controversial despite of its early discovery in the mid‐16th century (Mudry, ). Among the three middle ear ossicles the stapes is of the second branchial arch origin, whereas the malleus and incus are first arch derivatives (Goodrich, ; de Beer, ; Crompton and Parker, ; Kontges and Lumsden, ; Tucker et al, ; Chapman, ; Kitazawa et al, ).…”

“…A nearly complete stapes was recently reported from an Early Cretaceous eutriconodontan, Chaoyangodens (Hou and Meng, ), which is by far the earliest known mammalian stapes with unequivocal morphology (Meng and Hou, ). Although the stapes has been discovered centuries ago (Mudry, ) and has been known as the most conservative element of the middle ear ossicles, with its essential form and ontogeny being traceable in vertebrates (Goodrich, ; Eaton, ; Romer, ; Westoll, ; Parrington, ; Tumarkin, ; Fleischer, ; Lombard and Bolt, ; Parrington, ; Novacek and Wyss, ; Allin and Hopson, ; Clack and Allin, ), its composition and homology remains controversial today in developmental and evolutionary biology (see Meng and Hou [] for a brief review).…”