Herrick, Tettdencies in Nomenclature. 165 



Pread and postad are given as alternatives to cephalad and 

 caudad by two American authors. The three who favor ceph- 

 alic apparently would not admit cephalad. 



(b) caudad, 23, Am., 19, Eu., 4. 

 caudal, 13, Am., 3, Eu., 10. 

 caudally, i, Eu., i. 



posterior (ly), 6, Am., 4, Eu., 2- 

 downward, 2, Am., I, Eu., i. 

 terminal, I, Eu., I. 



(c) dorsad, 22, Am., 19, Eu., 3. 

 dorsal (ly), 22, Am., 8, Eu., 14. 

 dorsal to, I, Eu., i. 



back, 1, -Eu., i. 



(d) ventrad, 22, Am., 19, Eu., 3. 

 ventral(ly), 22, Am., 8, Eu., 14. 

 ventral to, i, Eu., I. 



front, I, Eu., i. 



(e) peripheral (ly), distal(ly), 32, Am., 15, Eu., 17. 

 peripherad, distad, 14, Am., 12, Eu., 2. 



A confusion arose between distal end and periphery, but 

 the intention evidently was to use the terms consistently in 

 each case. 



(f) proximal(ly), 23, Am., 9, Eu., 14. 

 proximad, li. Am., 9, Eu., 2. 

 central(ly), 9, Am., 6, Eu., 3. 

 centrad, 3, Am., 3. 



2. Are vernacular terms ambiguous ? 



yes, 24, Am., 16, Eu., 8. 

 no, 15, Am., 6, Eu., 9. 



Several of the authors who deny the ambiguity of these 

 terms do so with the qualification that they are not ambiguous 

 if applied alike to all animals ; but inasmuch as some of them 

 would apply the terms to the human body prone, while others 

 insist that they must be ' * referred to the human body in the 

 erect position," we find in fact that the ambiguity re-appears in 

 the very statement that there is no ambiguity. Of those who 

 recognize the ambiguity, most would avoid it by the use of an 

 intrinsic terminology, others frankly give up the attempt to 

 avoid it except by the context. The intrinsic terms, cephalic, 

 cranial, caudal etc. , are almost universally adopted as the pre- 

 ferred terms. The compounds in -ad are not so generally ad- 



