...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet?â€ Well, on this occasion I donâ€™t agree, Mr Shakespeare. This is particularly the case when the name is â€œpseudo-lymphomaâ€, an oft used term in dermatopathology, guaranteed to make my hackles rise. Part of my ire stems from the pathologist â€œdiagnosingâ€ pseudo-lymphoma - an oxymoron in my view. To diagnose is to a) recognise a disease or to find the cause of (a problem). So, concluding with pseudolymphoma means that whatever else you might have done you have not made a diagnosis. The typical context is familiar; a dense lymphoid infiltrate, perhaps some cytological atypia, variable epidermal involvement, no tattoo, for example, or a history of vaccination site, or other potential cause; not being convinced the infiltrate is malignant a â€œdiagnosisâ€ of pseudolymphoma is made,with the wonderful illusion that oneâ€™s work is done, a label affixed. Move on. In some instances the cause is known, such as drug-induced pseudolymphoma in a patient on anti-epileptics. This latter use is less irksome, Iâ€™ll concede, but either one can make a diagnosis or one canâ€™t. If there are no persuasive diagnostic features in such an infiltrate then maybe one is dealing with a pseudo-pseudolymphoma viz. a lymphoma. A lymphoid infiltrate of unknown significance is a more correct, certainly honest, admission to the clinician. Yesterday, I could have signed out pseudo-dermatomyositis (drug-reaction), pseudo-eczema (pityriasis rosea), pseudo-psoriasis (seborrheic dermatitis). So, letâ€™s drop pseudolymphoma as a pseudo-diagnosis, or risk another gem from the Bard, Macduffâ€™s lament, â€œConfusion now hath made his masterpieceâ€œ.