Wilder, Neural Tenns. 297 



ly adopted them, may have been unduly mfluenced by the absence of 

 those terms from the Committee's lists of synonyms, and by the seri- 

 ous omissions and errors embodied, however unintentionally, in your 

 article ? 



It seems to me not too much to ask of you to supply the oppor- 

 tunity for independent comparison and judgment by reproducing in 

 your Archiv the accompanying List of Neurologic and Vasal Terms 

 adopted by your Committee, the terms preferred by me in parallel 

 columns, the accompanying commentaries by me and such as you may 

 think best to add, and the correspondence of which this forms a part. 

 I have the honor to remain, Very respectfully, 



Your obedient servant, Burt G. Wilder, 



§227. The further correspondence between Professor His 

 and myself was as follows : — Second letter from him, Feb. 29, 

 1896. Third from me, Aug. 11. Third from him, Aug. 27. 

 Fourth from me, Sept. 28. Although my third contained the 

 statement that I was editing our correspondence for publication, 

 and the third from Professor His offered no objection thereto, 

 after consultation with the editors of this journal it has been 

 deemed best to summarize the later letters, and to include the 

 article (His, '96) already referred to (§222). As indicated at 

 the outset of my second letter (Jan. 3, 1896 ; §226) I felt that 

 he had tacitly granted my request for permission to publish his 

 first letter (§224). 



§228. At this stage I should like it understood that, in 

 originally addressing Professor His directly rather than in the 

 columns of a journal, I had two motives, viz.. First, the belief 

 that the impending discussion of Anatomic Nomenclature by 

 the Association of American Anatomists would be facilitated 

 by the information sought. Secondly, the sincere desire to avoid 

 a public controversy by affording to one whom I regarded as 

 mistaken the opportunity to modify his statements voluntarily. 

 This desire was in accordance with the sentiment, long enter- 

 tained, but first expressed six years ago in this journal ('91, b, 

 201-202) that, "since everyone makes mistakes, the interests of 

 all concerned would be best subserved by the adoption of the 

 custom of each correcting his own, either as soon as discovered 

 or periodically ; a sort of scientific confession of sins. The 

 natural corollary to this would be that each well-disposed dis- 

 coverer of another's faults would inform him privately so that 

 he might make prompt correction. This plan I have followed in 

 several cases, and have reason to believe it has served to avoid 

 personal irritation and the needless repetition of criticism.'" 



* The lamentable failure of the plan in the present case does not lessen my 

 confidence in its essential soundness. 



