Abstract
Congo red was discovered to stain amyloid by accident in 1922, and Congo red-stained amyloid was shown to be birefringent on polarization microscopy in 1927. Colours, namely green and yellow, were reported under these conditions in 1945, although these are only two of various anomalous colours that may be seen, depending on the optical set-up. In 1953 there began a dogmatic insistence that in Congo red-stained amyloid between crossed polarizer and analyser green alone should be seen, and the finding of any other colour was a mistake. The idea that green, and only green, is essential for the diagnosis of amyloid has persisted almost universally, and virtually all mentions of Congo red-stained amyloid say that it just shows "green birefringence" or "apple-green birefringence." This idea is wrong and is contrary to everyday experience, because green is seldom seen on its own under these conditions of microscopy, and often, there is no green at all. How observers maintain this unscientific position is explained by a study of its historical origins. Most of the early literature was in German or French and was usually quoted in English at second hand, which meant that misquotations, misattributions and misunderstandings were common. Few workers reported their findings accurately, hardly any attempted to explain them, and until 2008, none gave a completely satisfactory account of the physical optics. The history of Congo red-stained amyloid is an instructive example of how an erroneous belief can become widely established even when it is contradicted by simple experience.