298 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



§229. The second letter of Professor His contained no re- 

 plies to my questions, and evinced no disposition to discuss the 

 subject publicly ; on the contrary it declared that he had given 

 up all connection with nomenclature, and preferred to devote 

 his time to other studies. 



§230. In order to appreciate the situation from my stand- 

 point there should be borne in mind certain facts, and certain 

 propositions that are unlikely to be contested : — {a) Pro- 

 fessor His not only originated the German movement for 

 a revised nomenclature, but was a member of the special 

 committee of three on the " Redactionsausschuss ;" (i!^) he 

 had set forth the aims, methods and results of the entire 

 committee in an extended article ; {c) having assumed such re- 

 sponsibilities, it was his duty to ascertain what had been done 

 already ; id) had my own labors been wholly ignored I should 

 have contented myself with my associates in this respect, Bar- 

 clay, Whewell, Owen, Pye-Smith, and others ; {e) but, in con- 

 nection with a somewhat extended animadversion upon my 

 views, what purported to be a list of my " chief publications" 

 upon nomenclature omitted that which was most comprehen- 

 sive ; (/) under date of April 12, 1892 (§142), the secretary 

 of the German committee had assured me that a copy of my 

 principal article had been set in circulation among the members 

 of the committee ; {g) inquiries dated Dec. i, 1895 and July 

 ID, 1896, as to whether it had actually been transmitted to Pro- 

 fessor His, remained unanswered by the secretary ; (//) the last 

 of the six inquiries accompanying my first letter (§223, 6) might 

 have been answered at once and in a single word ; (z) there 

 would then have remained merely the explanation of his non- 

 acquaintance with the article in question. 



§231. On the eleventh of August, after waiting- five 

 months in the hope that reflection might convince Professor 

 His that his previous letters did not meet the fundamental require- 

 ments of the situation, I reminded him that the six points at 

 issue between us fell into two distinct categories ; that points i, 

 2 and 4 (indicated by the sections so numbered in my first 

 letter) called for the exercise of a certain amount of profess- 

 ional courtesy, and that he was clearly within his rights in de- 

 clining to take the time required for their elucidation ; but that 

 the other three had no necessary connection with nomenclature, 

 and that courtesy need not be invoked in dealing with them. 

 He had brought a general indictment, viz., as to the existence 

 of " many ungrammatic verbal combinations in my lists " (§223, 



