SOME NEURAL TERMS. I4I 



it is by no means uncommon to find in one and the same paper 

 " fissure of Rolando " and " paracentral lobule." 



As to the generic terms fissjira and sulcus, the former has 

 been consistently employed by me since 1880 for all linear 

 depressions of the cerebral surface, while the German com- 

 mittee restrict it to the sylvian (called by them cerebri lateralis), 

 the collateral, the occipital (their parieto-occipitalis), the calca- 

 rine, and the hippocampal, and name all the others sulci. They 

 regard the striatum as constituting an ental correlative of the 

 sylvian (p. 170); hence it may be inferred \\\dX fissicra indicates 

 a corrugation of the entire parietes, while sulcus indicates a 

 linear furrow not represented in the cavity by a corresponding 

 elevation. 1 Fully conceding the desirability of recognizing the 

 distinction between the two groups of cerebral furrows, the 

 following considerations lead me to question the advisability of 

 employing the two generic words in the senses proposed by the 

 German committee. 



1. Fissura and its various paronyms and heteronyms are 

 already well established and commonly associated with cerebral 

 topography. This subject, on account of its various relations, 

 physiologic, pathologic, surgical, and psychologic, has already 

 gained much general interest. Sulcus is a comparatively 

 unfamiliar word. It is distinctively Latin and technical. Its 

 Latin plural, sulci, is even more so. It does not readily lend 

 itself to paronymization, sulc and sulcuscs both being somewhat 

 unacceptable. 



2. Sulcus has recently been employed by Mrs. Gage ('93), 

 O. D. Humphrey ('94), P. A. Fish ('94), and B. F. Kingsbury 

 ('95) for ental (entocelian or intraventricular) depressions which 

 are less likely than the cerebral furrows to become subjects of 

 general interest. 



3. There is a practical difficulty that cannot be ignored. 

 Nothing in the words fissura and sulcus, or in their ordinary 

 associations, serves to admonish us as to the proposed distinc- 

 tion. Hence there is liability to misuse and confusion. Many 



1 The two groups are sometimes distinguished as total and partial, or as com- 

 plete and incomplete. The former seem to be preferable, since with the total the 

 totality of the parietes is involved, whereas complete and incomplete seem to imply 

 differing degrees of perfection. 



