I read with dismay the article titled "The Actinic (Solar) Keratosis: A 21st-Century Perspective," published last January in the ARCHIVES.¹ Not only does it misrepresent my thinking about the subject, but it reflects a mentality more like that of the 19th century than the 21st. In it, Wendy Fu and Clay J. Cockerell cite an article by me² as verification for their statement that "another name proposed is solar keratotic intraepidermal squamous-cell carcinoma." Never did I propose such a term; on the contrary, I have decried both the term itself and the concept that animates it in these words: "In conclusion, the terms apocrine carcinoma in situ, sebaceous carcinoma in situ, and melanoma in situ have legitimacy; the designation squamous-cell carcinoma in situ [intraepidermal squamous-cell carcinoma] does not."³