Wilder, Neural Tenns. 281 



anatomist. Unless the first name is to be retained there can be 

 no logical objection to replacing the second by a third. The 

 most complete exemplification of the practical superiority of 

 cimbia is supplied by the section concerning it in the latest 

 edition of the "Gewebelehre" by the distinguished chairman of 

 the German committee. On pp. 606-609 (really only three 

 pages if the cuts be excluded) and in addition to the page-head 

 and the section-title, Tractiis peduncjilaris tra7isverstis occurs ten 

 times, occupying more than five full lines. The occurrence of 

 Tractus pedunculafis in one place, and of Tractus alone or in 

 composition with German words in several, shows how burden- 

 some the polyonym had become, and how irresistible the tempta- 

 tion to vary. In the explanation of Fig. 707, the full title oc- 

 curs once; also Trad, /r^ and Tr. ped. ; compare §38. Tractus 

 transversus peduncidi of Brissaud is declared to stand for a differ- 

 ent bundle, but in the absence of such declaration the two 

 names would almost inevitably be supposed to mean the same 

 thing anatomically as they do etymologically. Again, since 

 Kolliker concedes pedunculi also to the cerebellum (pp. 337, 371, 

 etc.), and since many anatomists prefer to designate the fibrous 

 masses between the pons and the optic tracts as the crura, there 

 is ample opportunity for misapprehension upon the part of the 

 student, unless, in accordance with the absolute explicitness in- 

 sisted upon by His (§ 170, s), there be introduced the qualifier 

 cerebri or cerebralis. All these objectionable conditions vanish 

 with the adoption oi cimbia} Even if this were rejected, ambi- 

 guity could be avoided and brevity attained by designating the 

 great fibrous masses above mentioned as crura rather than pe- 

 dunculi, thus providing for Tractus cruris transversus, as sug- 

 gested in W. and G., '89, §57, note. 



§197. — Isthmus. — Prof. His complains that this word is 

 used by me in the sense of Gyrus annectens. This latter term 

 does not occur in the German list, so I assume that Gyrus trans- 

 itivus is meant. No one of my terminologic propositions gives 



^That it is not classic Latin, and that it may even have been a corruption of 

 cimbra, constitute no bar to its adoption into anatomy. 



