Wilder, Neural Terms. 295 



coincidence worth mention as indicating the possibiUty of some degree 

 of harmonious cooperation between us ? 



3. You say " Wilder und seine Collegen verlangen lauter Mon- 

 onyme." This is correct [but only in the sense oi. prefer; see §172]. 

 You then add, " Sie sagen, z.B. praecornu. pcTstcornu und posicava." 

 These words are used by me, but not, so far as I know, by other 

 members of the American Committees,^ although they recommend the 

 employment of calcar for hippocampus minor, hippocampus for h. 

 major, pons iox pons Varolii, insula for insula Reilii, and pi a and dura 

 for pia mater and dura mater respectively. 



4. You refer to the principle of mononymy. But you do not 

 seem to have gathered, even from my " Paronymy versus Heterony- 

 my as Neuronymic Principles" [85, c\, that mononyms are preferred 

 by us to polyonyms not so much because they are usually shorter, but 

 because, whatever their length, they are capable of two desirable 

 modifications, viz., (a) inflection as adjectives {e g., thalainicus, callos- 

 alis, duralis, etc.) and {b) adoption by paronymy into other languages, 

 {e g, hippocampus, hippocampe, hippocamp, Hippokamp, hippocampo). 

 Am I to infer that this feature of the matter was unknown to you, 

 or regarded as slight in importance ? 



5. You say " Sprachwidrige Wortzusammensetzung enthalt aber 

 Wilder's Liste sehr viele " It would not be without probability or 

 precedent that errors should occur among so large a number of terms, 

 but I must insist upon the specification of my ungrammatic verbal 

 combinations In particular I ask fuller grounds of objection to med- 

 ipedunculus [§198] 



6. You mention certain papers by me [as "eine Reihe von 

 kleineren Aufsatzen und Broschiiren" ; §170, d, note 2]. Their few- 

 ness [four], their brevity, and their recent dates [1890 1892] would in- 

 dicate that T had done little on the subject and that my views are cor- 

 respondingly unimportant. Yet my first paper on [encephalic] Nom- 

 enclature was in 1880 and I have published something almost annual- 

 ly since upon it. The article [W. and G , '89] in the " Reference 

 Handbook" [of the Medical Sciences. VIII, 515-533, 1889] was, so 

 far as I know, the fullest di&cussiim of late years; a copy was sent to 

 Dr, Krause [secretary of your committee] about May, 1891, and his 

 letter of April 12, 1892, informed me that it had been "set in circu- 

 lation among the Committee." It is also mentioned in most of my 

 papers or documents printed since 1889. In 1892, the American As- 

 sociation for the Advancement of Science adopted unanimously the 

 Report of the Committee (of which I am not a member) on Biological 



'As stated in the Introduction, §3, I desire to free others from responsi- 

 bilities which they have not assumed. So far as may be inferred from the entire 

 absence of later reference to this point upon the part of Professor His, an alle- 

 gation, absolutely unfounded and casting upon several American anatomists what 

 they may regard as serious discredit, may be publicly made and neither sub- 

 stantiated nor withdrawn. 



