254 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



nucleus for corpus seems to the American committee to consti- 

 tute a step backward, as tending to obscure the commonly ac- 

 cepted distinction between the part in question, with the analo- 

 gous part in the oliva on the one hand, and the "nuclei"^ of ori- 

 gin of the various nerves on the other. 



§124. FALX vs. Falx cerchi. — The German committee 

 designate the slighter fold of dura between the two lateral masses 

 of the cerebellum as falx carbclli. The present writer prefers 

 the diminutive, falciila. The American committee has not yet 

 passed upon this case. Even should they retain falx cerebelli it 

 would not prove a serious burden, because the part is hardly 

 mentioned once while the cerebral septum is named ten times. 



§125. TENTORIUM vs. tcntorhan cerebelli. — This case is 

 even stronger than that of falx, for tentorium is an idionym (§24). 



§126. STRIATUM ws. Corpus striatum. — See callosum, 



§127. CORNU DORSALEws. cohiuma {grisea) posterior. 

 — Two distinct issues are involved here : (a) toponymic, be- 

 tween posterior and dorsalis\ {b) organonymic, between colwiina 

 and cornu. The former will be considered in connection with 

 cotnu ventrale (§131) and radix dorsalis (§132), 



§128. CORNU vs. coluvina. — It is almost embarassing to 

 find myself advocating the maintenance of ancient and general 

 usage against one comparatively novel. Probably most ana- 

 tomic teachers will sympathize with the German committee in 

 their objection to the application of cormi to what is really one 

 of several ridges of a deeply fluted column of gray nervous tis- 

 sue constituting the core of the " spinal cord;" ridges that re- 

 semble " horns " only when artificially exposed upon transec- 

 tion. At least ten years ago I was so deeply impressed by this 

 inappropriateness of cornu as to hunt up an architectural term, 

 namely arris, signifying the ridge between two adjoining chan- 

 nels of a Doric column. Whether or not it was derived from 

 arista, it is excellent Latin in form, and acceptable in every re- 

 spect save its novelty. 



* The question of preference between nucleus, and nidus (Spitzka) and «/</«- 

 Ins (C. L. Herrick), need not be considered upon the present occasioa. 



