'History and first descriptions' of autism: a response to Michael Fitzgerald.

Chown (2012) wrote a short letter to the editor. He answered claims that Leo Kanner copied ideas from Hans Asperger in 1943 without giving credit.

The letter walks through dates of Kanner's lectures and papers. It argues Kanner reached his autism picture on his own.

No new data were gathered. The author shows earlier lecture notes and letters. These items place Kanner's thinking before Asperger's 1944 paper reached the U.S.

The letter concludes that Kanner did not need Asperger's work to describe early infantile autism.

Volkmar (2021) picks up the story four decades later. That paper marks 1980, when DSM-III first listed autism. Together the two pieces show how the field moved from one man's case reports to an official diagnosis.

Leslie (2006) and Leung et al. (2014) use the same method. Each paper defends a founder—Skinner and Watson—against later critics. All three letters urge readers to check original dates before repeating old myths.

Tincani et al. (2019) looks at today's journals. It finds many graphs still break scaling rules. The thread: careful history and careful graphs both protect the field's credibility.

When you teach parents or new staff about autism's past, you can now say the Kanner-Asperger timing is clearer than once thought. Use the timeline to show how descriptions evolve and why credit matters. It reminds teams that good science starts with good records—whether you are taking session notes or writing a progress report.