Wilder, Neural Terms. 271 



[(?] the word dura for dura mater encephali is used when misapprehen- 

 sion is impossible. But we cannot acknowledge that words like medi- 

 pedunculus \p'\ for pedunculus cerebelli ad pontem constitute a linguistic 

 or practical improvement. The contraction of several words into a 

 smgle one may be under certain circumstances \(j\ a simplification ; 

 but, as with the too concise telegraph style [r], it may, on the other 

 hand, involve lack of clearness, and then its advantage is negatived ; 

 for words formed in this manner demand a special explanation for their 

 comprehension. Medipedunculus alone is unintelligible \s\. It must 

 surely be called medipedunculus cerebelli^ and over this again should 

 preference be given to pedunculus mcdius cerebelli, because the barbar- 

 ously formed [/] word medipedunculus could be used indifferently for 

 pedunculus medtus, for pedunculus medialis, or for pars media or medialis 

 peduncult \u\ But Wilder's list contains very many \y\ ungrammatic 

 verbal combinations, and one need not be a philologic pedant \t.v\ to 

 take offense at words like terma (instead o{ lamina termmalis) \_x\, post- 

 ramus (for ratnus posterior arboris cerebelli ) \y\ and others. Many 

 words like cimbia (for tractus peduncularis transversus) [z], coelia (for 

 cavitas encephali) [a], aulix {\or sulcus Mo nroi ) [/3], and others, are 

 moreover new [;'], or, like isthmus {iox gyrus annectens), used in another 

 than the accepted sense. I know not how far may extend the circle 

 of American collaborators supporting Wilder \S\. At all events, his 

 proposals tend to create a language entirely new [e] and for the most 

 part quite strange, and on this ground our commission cannot follow 

 him, without renouncing its historic principles [r;]." 



§171. Certain points in the foregoing extract have already 

 become the subjects of the correspondence between Prof. His 

 and myself referred to in the Introduction (§4) and constituting 

 Part VI. Their inclusion in that later division of the present 

 article is the more desirable in view^ of the hope based upon 

 my last letter from Prof His that, before that part is put in 

 type, he may have discussed those points publicly. 



§172. It will be seen that, like the German committee 

 and the entire Gesellschaft, Prof His is disturbed by the Amer- 

 ican preference for mononyms. In one passage he character- 

 izes it as the " vorwiegende Bestreben " [m] ; in another [i] 

 by " verlangen lauter. " Now ver/ange/i has two distinct mean- 

 ings, viz. , desire or prefer, and dcuiand or insist upon. As will 

 appear in Part VI, it is now (Nov. 10, 1896) nearly a year since 

 Prof. His had an opportunity to state in which of these senses 

 the word is to be understood, and more than two months have 

 elapsed since the ambiguity was brought expressly to his notice. 

 The sweeping charge (§147) framed by the Gesellschaft in his 



