266 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



sion of the more fundamental grounds upon which the Ameri- 

 can committees prefer not merely that terms should be reason- 

 ably short, but also, when practicable, consist of single words 

 each, i. e. , mononyms, or, at most, of two words each, a noun 

 and a mononymic adjective. 



§162. In addition to the incidental previous references to 

 the subject in the present paper (§§25, 47, 50) the differences 

 between the more and the less essential advantages of mono- 

 nyms over polyonyms may be fairly indicated by extracts from 

 two earlier articles. The first ('84, e) was presented to the 

 American Association for the Advancement of Science in con- 

 nection with my suggestion that a committee on Anatomic No- 

 menclature be appointed by that body. Since it contains no 

 reference to prior terminologists, it may be proper to add that, 

 as published, it was a mere abstract, and that in both earlier 

 and later ^papers of greater length ('81, d, c ; W. & G., '82, 

 '89), an effort was made to give due credit to those who had 

 either indicated or smoothed the way. 



§163. "7. Should not organonymic terms (terms of designation) 

 be, as far as practicable, brief; capable of inflection; classic in deriva- 

 tion and form ; already used in a kindred sense ? ^ 



8. Since the length of a term may depend upon not only the 

 number of syllables and letters, but also upon the number of separate 

 words, and since, properly, only single words are capable of inflection, 

 is there not a twofold reason why the names of parts, wM certain self- 

 evident exceptions, (nerves, etc? ) should be mononymic ? 



9. Is there much real analogy between the nomenclature of 

 anatomy and that of zoology and botany? [cf §146, last line.] 



10. How far should priority be regarded ni the selection of ex- 

 isting names ? 



11. Can priority be claimed for terms which are vernacular or 

 descriptive ? 



12. In considering all questions of termino'ogic reform, should 

 we not regard less our present and personal convenience, than the in- 

 terests of the vastly more numerous anatomical workers of the future?" 



' [This note was a part of the paper.] "In later papers ('85, b and c) I have 

 suggested that, in English works, so far as possible, the names be given an Eng- 

 lish aspect by paronytnization. For example, commissura becomes commissure ; 

 pediinculus, pedtincle. With many names no change is needed, z.% vi\\\\. porta, 

 aiilix, fornix, callosum, etc. Heteronyms or vernacular translations are regarded 

 as objectionable. The same principle is applicable to other languages." 



2 This phrase is italicized for a reason that will appear later, 2172. 



