SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 186 



To speak of the anterior or fore-legs of a horse is quite correct, but 

 to speak of the anterior or fore-legs of a millepede (or an insect ? 

 Ed.) is most vague. Does the writer contend that fore or anterior 

 (Latin anterior) is the same as front (Latin anticus) , iin({ that posterior 

 (Latin posterior) is the same as hind (Latin jwsticus) ? The writer in 

 his remarks causes confusion by speaking of fore-legs. What does he 

 mean by that word? If he means front legs, why does he not say so? 

 To me, fore-legs (pedes anter lores) and front legs [pedes antici) convey 

 quite distinct meanings. Pore, ■' anterior, and posterior are gramma- 

 tically comparative terms, which can compare with only one other 

 thing, and not with more than one other thing. I most emphatically 

 object to the statement that " Any usage of the terms anterior and 

 posterior for the middle pair (of legs) is surely not science, nor has it any 

 meaning as English." Those words convey a most distinct meaning 

 to me as an Englishman, and they mean something quite distinct from 

 " front " and " hind " when more than two of anything are being dis- 

 tinguished. Because careless writers have used the term " anterior " 

 or '' fore" when they meant "front," and " posterior" when they meant 

 " hind " is no excuse for subsequent writers. I am not enunciating 

 any new dogma, because Linne in 1758 was usually accurate, but as 

 he dealt with all animated nature he sometimes incorrectly used in Insecta 

 the terms which he had correctly employed in Mammalia. Nearly 

 seventy years ago, in other orders than diptera, the accurate Haliday 

 always differentiated these terms, while the inaccurate Walker muddled 

 them. Lepidopterists may grammatically write about the anterior 

 and posterior wings, because they are comparative terms, but if they 

 and others choose to be more slovenly in their definitions of the legs 

 than dipterists, so much the more credit to the dipterists ! — G. H. 

 Verrall, F.E.S., Sussex Lodge, Newmarket. [The front legs {antici) 

 become more front (anter lores), by adding to them that which is 

 behind them. The second pair of legs are also both anterior legs and 

 posterior legs. Several similarly logical and lucid results follow from 

 Mr. Verrall's definitions. Nevertheless, however absurd, logically and 

 grammatically, any phraseology may be, it must be accepted, if it has that 

 amount of authority behind it, which is involved in early, continuous, and 

 general usage. Mr. Verrall definitely shows that no such authority exists. 

 We have no space to go into detail of argument, but we may point 

 out that aiitlcKs (" front ") is itself a comparative term, whilst anterior 

 means more in front than any other, unless you have just specified 

 some other for comparison. " Anterior " as an English word is 

 synonymous with " fore," and both with " front " as we now use it as 

 an adjective. " Front " is a noun and of very doubtful authority as 

 an adjective. As adjectives implying being in front we have only fore 

 (or forward) and anterior, both having the meaning of Latin antlcus. 

 We have no English word derived from antlcus to which anterior can 

 be the comparative. Westwood calls the first legs, fore-legs, Sharp 

 calls them indifferently, front and anterior. Stainton says anterior, 

 middle and posterior. Scudder says fore-legs, &c. Various instances 

 may be cited where antu-ns and posticus are used in Latin descriptions, 

 translated into anterior and posterior in English. The English word 

 anterior has not the meaning of the Latin anterior, but of the Latin 



* Fore is not comparative, any more than hind is. — Ed. 



