'Glueman' and 'Crow Sister' there's nothing stopping either or both of you from undertaking this 'critical analysis' of the 1954 definition - why dump the responsibility onto someone else? Don't know how much of the orginal documentation survives - but I'm sure that resourceful and motivated researchers could find out.

Of course 'glueman' had already made up his mind that the definition is flawed - it's going to be difficult to maintain your objectivity, isn't Mr 'g'? Still, I'm sure you're up to the challenge - go for it, and I look forward to reading your findings!