ABSTRACT
In1939,LevineandStetson(1)describedafatalcaseofhemolyticdiseaseofthenewborn(HDN). Thewomanwhohadbeendeliveredofthestillbornfetushadahemolytictransfusionreaction whenshewassubsequentlytransfusedwithbloodfromtheinfant'sfather.Thereportdidnot claimthatthematernalantibodywasresponsiblefortheinfant'sdeath,norwastheantibody givenaname.In1940,LandsteinerandWiener(2)describedanantibodymadeinguineapigs andrabbitsinresponsetoinjectionsofredbloodcells(RBCs)fromrhesusmonkeys.Theanti-rh reactedvisiblywiththeRBCsofsome85%ofhumans.Inthesameyear,WienerandPeters(3) reportedthatwhatappearedtobeanantibodywiththesamespecificity,whenmadeinhumans, causedhemolytictransfusionreactions.In1941,Levineetal.(4-6)publishedaseriesofreports aboutHDNandcorrectlyimplicatedthematernalantibodyasthecausativeagentofRBC destruction.TheantibodiesstudiedbyLevineandcolleagues(1,4)appearedtohavethesame specificityasthoseraisedinanimalsbyLandsteinerandWiener(2)andtheexamplesfromhumans studiedbyWienerandPeters(3).Althoughitisnowknownthatthehumanantibodieswere anti-Rh0(anti-D)anditiswidelybelievedthattheanti-rhmadeinanimalswerewhatwaslater (7)calledanti-LW,thereisnodoubtthatthereportscitedaboverepresentdiscoveryofthehuman Rhbloodgroupsystem.Althoughithasbeenpointedout(8)thatasearlyas1932,Buchbinder (9)wasstudyingantibodiesmadeinanimalsinjectedwithrhesusmonkeyRBCs,examinationof thereportofthatworksuggests(atleasttothisauthor)thatnocleardifferentiationwasachieved betweenthespeciesantibodiesthatwouldhavebeenpresentintheanimals'seraandanti-rh,if indeedthatantibodywasraised.BecauseBuchbinderwasworkinginLandsteiner'slaboratory, itseemsreasonabletoconcludethatthe1940report(2)describedextensionoftheearlierstudies.
II.RhANTIGENSANDPHENOTYPES
