SOME NEURAL TERMS. 1 69 



xiphisteniimi, respectively; of "squama occipitalis" for (os) 

 supraoccipitale ; of " arcus zygomaticus " for :^ygoma ; of " lat- 

 issimus dorsi," " biceps brachii," and " triceps brachii " for 

 latissimus, biceps, and triceps, respectively; of "processus ver- 

 miformis " for appendix ; of " substantia corticalis " for cortex; 

 of "vena cava superior" and "vena cava inferior," "radix 

 anterior " and " radix posterior," for terms not dependent for 

 appropriateness upon the erect attitude of the human body. 



In the declaration of the Anatomische Gesellschaftand in the 

 warning of its oldest member it is intimated that between the 

 American and German committees there already exists a ter- 

 minologic crevice, which further advance upon our part is 

 likely to convert into an "impassable gulf." Taken by them- 

 selves, or in connection with the passages just referred to, it 

 seems to me that Dr. Dwight's closing words convey a similar 

 gloomy impression, and that they present alternatives too widely 

 divergent. 



As may be seen from pages 127-145, with the single excep- 

 tion of the German retention of antenor BXid posterior {pp. 144, 

 145), between the German committee and the American com- 

 mittees that had reported prior to the three utterances referred 

 to in the last paragraph, the actual differences were really 

 trivial. Even the list adopted by the American Neurological 

 Association contains no unfamiliar term whatever.^ 



It must be remembered also that only neural terms are here 

 referred to. As well remarked by Pye-Smith ('77, 162) and 

 by His ('95, 155), encephalic nomenclature stands most in 

 need of revision and offers peculiar difficulties. With the other 

 regions of the body the conditions and necessities are far sim- 

 pler. Hence there is no probability that any action of Ameri- 

 can committees respecting anatomic nomenclature as a whole 

 could eventuate in the establishment of what could be regarded 

 justly as a " separate standard." A stronger phrase for the 

 hypothetic contingency could hardly be employed were the dif- 



1 The allegation of Professor His that my individual " proposals tend to create 

 a language entirely new and for the most part quite strange " has already been 

 met (p. 157). In matters non-scientific a deliberate exaggeration of like extent 

 would probably receive a briefer and less euphemistic characterization. 



