It really doesn't matter when it was published. The vast majority of medical text books printed today in America show the circumcised penis as normal. The only time they show an intact penis is when they are addressing a topic that specifically involves the foreskin such as phimosis or adult circumcision.
I suspect there is at least one innocent reason for this. One is that the majority of men under 60 years old are circumcised. Another is that circumcision has been a class distinction up until the last 30 or 40 years and probably the most legitimate one is that if you are showing a problem with the glans, meatus or other parts of the penis other than the foreskin, it must be retracted to show those parts. So, the circumcised penis is the more common and easier to find for photography, Circumcision has been associated with higher income and education and thus these men are more likely to seek medical intervention and the photography of the circumcised penis is easier. Certainly, these are all pathetic reasons and it must be realized somewhere in these peoples subconscious that they are normalizing the abnormal to the detriment of millions of men.