Background: The aim is to inform authors, investigators, and journal editors about the evolution and progression of Behçet symptoms or findings chronologically in evidence–based historical articles since Hippocratic writings to bring physicians with different areas of interest to a consensus and thus address the significance of consistency in the eponym “Behçet” among authors interested in Behçet’s disease care and research, as science does not accept a “naming dilemma”. Material/Methods: The historical progression of Behçet’s disease is divided into three periods, namely pre-Behçet, Behçet, and post-Behçet. Results: Although similar symptoms and clinical findings were reported in Hippocratic writings, a clear description of the “Triple Symptom Complex” consisting of the “Classical Triad” that indicates a new syndrome, was not presented until the important publications of Dr. Hulusi Behçet. Conclusions: This article will answer the needs and questions of authors and journal editors who are in a dilemma regarding the eponym. Therefore, researchers should strongly avoid changing the name of an old disorder well known since 1941 as “Behçet’s disease” by not only every physician who supervises Behçet patients throughout the world, but also medical students and even the public. This would otherwise lead to needless chaos among journal editors, authors, and Behçet patients, who already have difficulty in defining their illness with high morbidity from blinding ocular disease or mortality from vascular, pulmonary, and neurological involvement.

Keywords: History, Ancient, History, 20th Century, History, 19th Century, Eponyms, Behcet Syndrome - history, Research - history, Turkey