In the standard literature of dermatology and dermatopathology "eosinophilic pustular folliculitis in infancy" is presented as a distinctive inflammatory disease of the skin, to wit, a variant of "Ofuji's eosinophilic folliculitis". Assessment critically of the first publication devoted to the subject revealed a potpourri of findings clinical and histopathologic, with no clear criteria being set forth by the authors to enable diagnosis, with precision. Our review of all articles dedicated to the matter of "eosinophilic pustular folliculitis in infancy" shows that criteria for diagnosis are found with great difficulty. The majority of patients reported on had neither "eosinophilic folliculitis," nor did they present themselves clinically in any way similar to what was originally described by Ofuji. The findings histopathologic told of most commonly were dense and diffuse infiltrates in the dermis that contained many eosinophils, sometimes with periadnexal distribution. We think that the findings reported on in several articles suggest that the patients more likely had a variety of different diseases, among them scabies, insect bites, impetigenized nummular dermatitis, and linear IgA-dermatosis. For clarification of terminology, we suggest that "eosinophilic folliculitis" is better defined as a pattern histopathologic than as a distinctive disease entity. It may be encountered in a variety of conditions (eg, Ofuji's disease, arthropod bites, scabies, or dermatophytosis). In sum, no clear criteria have been established for diagnosis of "eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy" and there is no convincing evidence, at present, that "eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy" qualifies as a distinctive inflammatory disease of the skin.