Herrick, Tendencies in Nomenclature. 163 



In view of the expressed purpose of the German Nomen- 

 clature Commission to re-open the discussion of the question of 

 anatomical nomenclature next year, it seems desirable to pub- 

 lish, with the consent of Professor Baldwin, at this time a sum- 

 mary of the results of the questionaire ; we therefore give be- 

 low the text of the circular with an annotated statement of the 

 replies, the paragraphs of the statement being numbered to 

 correspond with those of the circular. 



Dear Sir : 



In connection with the preparation of a Dictionary of Phil- 

 osophy AND Psychology, to be issued in London and New York by 

 the Macmillan Co., under the editorial charge of Prof. J. Mark Bald- 

 win, it is desired to determine both the current and the preferred 

 usage in the case of a number of neurological and anatomical terms. 

 We beg, therefore, to request that, in the interests of greater consist- 

 ency and uniformity of terminology, you wiU respond as early as pos- 

 sible to the questions below and return the answers to C. L. Herrick, 

 Socorro, New Mexico, U. S A. We should be glad for permission 

 to cite your opinion; but if, for any reason, you desire not to be 

 quoted and so indicate, the answers will be compiled without refer- 

 ence to the source. In either case please add your signature to the 

 blank. 



1. What do you onsider the prevailing and preferred usage 

 (the latter in parenthesis and underscored) tor terms of anatomical 

 position and direction, e g : 



(a) Toward the cephalic extremity of the body axis 



(b) " " caudal " " " " 



(c) " *' dorsal aspect of the body 



(d) " " ventral " " 



(e) " " periphery of a limb or member 



(f) " " central end " " " 



2. Are the terms "forward," "backward," "above," "below," 

 "descending," "ascending," "higher" and "lower" (or their German, 

 French, etc., equivalents) ambiguous as applied to directions and posi- 

 tions in the central nervous system ; and, if so, how may the ambi- 

 guity best be avoided? 



3. Do you favor the reduction of polynomial descriptive terms 

 to mononyms so far as possible, as 



(a) By dropping the substantive in such terms as (corpus) callo- 

 sum and (area) opaca? 



(b) By substituting compound mononyms for polynomial expres- 

 sions, as "medipedunculus" for "brachium pontis cerebelli" or "pre- 

 perforata" for "area perforata anterior"? 



