290 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



both groups I have italicized the Greek eleroent which (so far as 

 appears in a standard lexicon) failed to be adopted (by paronymy) 

 into classic Latin. Of course the abstract etymologic immor- 

 ality involved in the two sets of irregular connections is the 

 same. The offspring of the second set surely compare favor- 

 ably with the first in point of comeliness/ and their utility as 

 savers of labor and time may be estimated by comparison with 

 their polyonymic equivalents in the third column. 



TABLE IV. 



§215. The reasonable view of hybrid terms seems to me to 



be embodied in the following remark of Barclay ('03) : 



"Notwithstanding the opprobrium attached by some to certain con- 

 nections and intermarriages among harmless vocables, I should be in- 

 clined not to reject the cooperation of the two languages (Greek and 

 Latin) where experience shows it to be convenient, useful or neces- 

 sary." 



Abstractly, we may all prefer horses to mules, but this need 

 not hinder us from recognizing that, under certain circumstances, 

 the latter are more efficient than the former, and that, in a given 

 case, a horse may not be even so handsome as a mule. 



§216. The verdict of Prof. KoUiker that the nomenclature 

 coming from America in recent years is a "complete failure" 



^The first four from the German list might have been replaced from the same 

 source by the less acceptable "sphenopalatinum," "sphenooccipitalis," "occi- 

 pitomastoidea" and "squamosomastoidea." 



