<P> The caduceus was formally adopted by the Medical Department of the United States Army in 1902 and was added to the uniforms of Army medical officers . According to Friedlander, this was brought about by one Captain Frederick P. Reynolds, although Bernice Engle states "the use of the caduceus in our army I believe to be due chiefly to the late Colonel Hoff, who has emphasized the suitability of the caduceus as an emblem of neutrality . Reynolds had the idea rejected several times by the Surgeon General, but persuaded the new incumbent--Brig. Gen. William H. Forwood--to adopt it . This resulted in considerable controversy . </P> <P> The Army and Navy Register of 28 June 1902 discusses the argument, which reflects the fact that a number of medical officers were unhappy with the choice . The article editor claims that the symbol was not chosen for its medical connotations and proposes the following symbolic interpretation: "the rod represents power, the serpents stand for wisdom and the two wings imply diligence and activity, qualities which are undoubtedly possessed by our Medical officers ." The editor also points out that the majority of Medical Corps personnel are not even doctors . According to this line of reasoning, the caduceus was never intended to be a symbol of medicine . The inconsistency was noticed several years later by the librarian to the Surgeon General, but for reasons which are not entirely clear, the symbol was not changed . </P> <P> Considerable light is shed on this confusion by an anonymous letter republished by Emerson, a historian of United States Army insignia and uniforms . He indicates that the April 1924 issue of The Military Surgeon printed a review of an earlier article that appeared in the Presse Medicale in which the author stated "There is nothing in history to justify the use of the caduceus as the emblem of the physician (...) it is most unfortunate that the' confusion' exists ." In an anonymous rebuttal contained in a letter to the editor published three months later in The Military Surgeon it was claimed that the late Col. John R. van Hoff was a member of the board that selected the emblem ("if he was not the one who was chiefly instrumental in its adoption"). In the letter to the editor reproduced by Emerson, the anonymous author claims </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> Hoff was far too scholarly and intelligent a man to commit the blunder of' confusing' the caduceus with the serpent staff of Aesculapius . The sign of Mercury was deliberately adopted, as I have heard him state, because it was the emblem of the merchant and hence the emblem of the noncombatant . In junctures when it was necessary for a vessel to proclaim its nature, it was customary for a merchant vessel to indicate its noncombatant status by flying a flag which bore the emblem of Mercury, the God of the Merchant . The caduceus, in our use of it, is not distinctively the emblem of the physician, but the emblem of the whole Medical Department . The enlisted men of the medical department outnumber the physicians of that department . Besides the ambulance wagons, many vehicles are employed in field service in war which are not distinctively medical, but which are used for medical purposes . Both the enlisted men and the vehicles of the department (not to mention many other objects), should bear some sign of neutralization for protection . It seemed to Colonel Hoff and to the board that the Geneva cross, which in addition to its use as an emblem of neutrality is also the emblem of the Swiss Republic, there might well be substituted an emblem which is not the emblem of a foreign country, and the caduceus was selected, as the emblem which for many ages has served to indicate the noncombatant . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="3">--William K Emerson, Encyclopedia of United States Army Insignia and Uniforms </Td> </Tr> </Table>

Where did the symbol for medicine come from