Shelton's response

It is clear from their comments that no respondent has elected to read the supporting evidence referred to in my paper, where 150 pages of facts and evidence discuss in detail the points now raised.¹

Camper's 1752 comment refers to the 20 line drawings, as he drew but one detailed drawing, plate 12. Hence, only 15 subjects were needed for Smellie's 39 plates and 17 for Hunter's 34 plates. In my full analysis, the 1750–1754 subjects are combined with those of Jenty and Shippen.

There was no network of resurrectionists in 1750–1754. Hunter's anatomy school commenced in late 1746 and he was the first anatomist to guarantee each student a subject. Prior to that, each London anatomist lectured upon one subject before his students, with single subjects resurrected as necessary. Resurrections were technically illegal, but condoned by authorities. Smellie never had an anatomy school and in 1750 Hunter only had about 50 students.

Undelivered subjects were extremely rare as doctors intervened to save the mother, or child if the mother died first. Applying MMR to Smellie's patient numbers infers one or two child-bed deaths per year, but undelivered cadavers were damaged by intervention and unsuitable as subjects.

As discussed in my analysis, resurrected cadavers were not fresh enough to reflect windows, as with Hunter's plate XXVI.

The supporting evidence shows murder was the only practical way for Hunter and Smellie to procure 20 fresh, undelivered cadavers within five years, when one, or perhaps two, undelivered subjects might have been expected, but those were rendered useless by intervention.

Even Hunter commented in his preface: ‘the opportunities for dissecting the human pregnant uterus at leisure, very rarely occur. Indeed, to most anatomists, if they happen at all, it has been but once or twice in their whole lives.’

Footnotes

Competing interests None declared