2/2 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



presence and apparently under his direction would justify the 

 interpretation of verlangen as demand. But until assured to that 

 effect by Prof. His himself, I hesitate to entertain so monstrous 

 a perversion of the facts upon the following grounds : [a) In all 

 the reports of the American committees the expression of pref- 

 erence for mononyms is accompanied by the proviso " other 

 things being equal." {b) I have repeatedly conceded the im- 

 possibility of the application of the principle to groups of parts, 

 fissures, gyres, vertebrae, bloodvessels, muscles and nerves. 

 The remark that there are "certain self-evident exceptions 

 (nerves, etc.)," occurs in a paper ('84, ^ ; §163, 8) presented 

 by me twelve years ago to the American Association for the 

 Advancement of Science and printed in the Proceedings of that 

 body (pp. 528-529). If Prof. His ever consults any American 

 scientific publication it would seem not unnatural that the title of 

 that paper, " On some Questions in Anatomical Nomenclature," 

 should have attracted the notice of one who, three years later, 

 himself urged ('95, i) upon the German anatomical society the 

 need of action upon the subject, and who was occupied- there- 

 with more or less for eight years afterward. 



§173. In order to eliminate so far as possible the personal 

 element from the consideration of the special criticisms of Prof. 

 His, I select as the first subject of rejoinder a term, postcava, 

 in which my interest is only indirect, as of one toward a child 

 by adoption rather than by paternity. Omitting intervening 

 phrases not affecting the interpretation, the complaint of Prof. 

 His reads (translated) as follows: — " Wilder and his colleagues 

 [//] 5i< * * say \j~\^praccornn -Awdi postcormi iox cornii anterius 

 and cornu posterius, postcava \k~\ for vena eava posterior, with 

 many similar terms." The implied disclaimer as to " philologic 

 pedantry " \w\ can hardly embrace a toleration of misstatement ; 

 hence, before discussing the intrinsic merits of the word se- 

 lected, it may be well to dispose of minor points that might 

 complicate the main issue. 



§174. In the text Prof. His refers only to "Wilder," and 

 in note 2 (see the original, §169) an initial is wrong. Hence it 

 is only just to state that my terminologic transgressions must 



