1 66 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



mitted, and in several cases in which they are adopted on ac- 

 count of their great practical utility it is with the reservation 

 that they will be called for only very sparingly. 



3. Reduction of polyonyms to mononyms. 



(a) by dropping substantive. 



yes, 21, Am., 18, Eu., 3. 

 no, 21, Am., 7, Eu., 14. 



(b) by compounding. 



yes, 17, Am., 15, Eu., 2. 

 no, 24, Am., 9, Eu., 15. 



A large proportion of those favoring the reduction to mo- 

 nonyms qualify it by stating that ambiguity must be avoided, 

 the compound terms must be etymologically correct, etc. 



4. (a) proton, 13, Am., 7, Eu., 6. 



Anlage, 11, Am., 8, Eu., 3. 

 rudiment, 9, Am., 5, Eu., 4. 

 fundament, 6, Am., 3, Eu., 3. 

 foundation, i, Am., i. 

 origin, i. Am., I. 

 beginning, i. Am., i. 



The term rudiment was in several cases recommended as 

 opposed to vestige, thus removing any possible ambiguity. It 

 is probable that this is the concensus of opinion of those who 

 recommend this term. 



(b) neuron, 27, Am., 12, Eu., 15. 

 neurone, i, Am., i. 



neure, i. Am., i. 

 neurocyte, 8, Am., 7, Eu., I. 

 nerve cell, 8, Am., 5, Eu., 3. 



(c) ganglion cell, 23, Am., 9, Eu., 14. 

 gangliocyte, 8, Am., 5, Eu., 3. 

 aesthesioblast, i. Am., i. 

 sensi-neuron, i, Am., i. 

 sensory neuron, i. Am., I. 

 nerve cell, i, Eu., i. 



(d) nucleus, 25, Am., 12, Eu., 13. 

 nidus, 10, Am., 8, Eu., 2. 

 nidulus, I, Eu., i. 

 neuronidulus, i, Am., i. 



cell group; 2, Am., 2. recommended as an alternative with 

 nucleus. 



