Accuracy and errors about the human ovary; the good, bad and the ugly

This collection is dedicated to the memory of Professor Ken McNatty and Professor Rex Scaramuzzi, both of whom made outstanding contributions to the understanding of reproductive, and particularly ovarian, biology. In fact, the impetus for this commentary began when the authors questioned why some textbooks continued to print an earlier theory of ovarian development by Haward Sawyer and Ken McNatty (Sawyer et al . 2002 ), when important additional findings were published in 2013 (Hummitzsch et al . 2013 ). The authors question why textbooks, websites and YouTube videos continue to present misinformation about the ovary with statements and illustrations that are patently inaccurate or incorrect. We are aware that medical and science textbook publishers may take no responsibility for the accuracy of content by printing a disclaimer to this effect. Webpages and YouTube videos, in the main, exist with no such caveat. Do authors of textbooks accept responsibility to publish up-to-date factual material and avoid demonstrably incorrect information? In some cases, apparently not. Here we will show examples from the ovarian biology that we encounter regularly, that authors often do not check nor update content for the multiple book editions published over decades. If original sources are not consulted by authors, where are they getting their information? Erroneous statements and dogma continue to be represented in scientific literature as established facts. Textbooks, in particular, are supposed to be reliable sources of information. Unfortunately, too many mislead students and scholars and promulgate misinformation. If the contributions of Professor Ken McNatty, Professor Rex Scaramuzzi and others are to be truly valuable, then knowledge amplified by textbooks and the web must at least be accurate.