Wilder, Neural Terms. 285 



membered easily even by general students, and by those who 

 may not have had a classical training.^ 



7. In recent times it has been independently proposed by 

 two anatomists, teachers as well as investigators.^ 



8. It has been adopted more or less completely by three 

 of the older American neurologists, Henry F. Osborn, ('82, 

 '84, '88), E. C. Spitzka ('81, '84), and R. Ramsay Wright 

 ('84, '85), and unreservedly by eight of the younger, W. 

 Browning, T. E. Clark, P. A. Fish, Mrs. S. P. Gage, O. D. 

 Humphrey, B. F. Kingsbury, T. B. Stowell, and B. B. Stroud. 



§203. It will be noted that among the advantages of coelia 

 over ventriculus is not enumerated its freedom from ambiguity. 

 Theoretically, of course, vcntricubis {encepliali) might be mis- 

 taken for venhiculus {cardiac s. cordic). Practically, however, 

 the context would almost infallibly obviate misapprehension.^ 

 Hence from my point of view, the absolute unambiguity of 

 cocHa and its compounds would not in itself justify its replace- 

 ment of vcntricubis. It would be a causa vera, but hardly a 

 causa sufficicns. 



§204. The concluding remark of Professor His may be 

 said to "cap the climax" of his ill-founded criticism. The 

 characterizations, " vollig neuen " and " grossentheils recht 

 fremdartig Klingenden," could hardly have been more sweeping 



* Among the hundreds of such students at Cornell University and at the 

 Medical School of Maine who have gained their practical and theoretic knowl- 

 edge of encephalic morphology by means of these compounds no special diffi- 

 culty has ever been experienced. 



"^ My propositions first appeared in the paper, '8i, b, March 19 and 26, 

 1881. On the fifteenth of August, 1882, Prof. T. Jeffery Parker read be- 

 fore the the Otago Institute of New Zealand a paper ('82) in which mesocoele 

 and similar compounds were introduced, although he was evidently quite una- 

 ware of my prior publication. The terms were also employed in his " Zootomy" 

 ('84) and in a later paper ( '86). 



^My previous reference (^igcj) to the polyonymic derivative, sulcus limitans 

 ventricular um, was not for the sake of demonstrating the ambiguity of that term 

 but to illustrate the inconsistency of the implied demand of Professor His (§170) 

 that all terms must be self-explanatory and require no definition. 



