320 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



Comments upon Table VI. 



§239. General. — Professor Kolliker has characterized ('96, 

 814; §208) "the anatomic nomenclature coming from America 

 in recent years as a complete failure. " Professor His has declared 

 ('95, 6, 7; §170) that the writer's "proposals tend to create 

 a language entirely new and for the most part quite strange, 

 and on this ground our commission cannot follow him without 

 renouncing its historic principles."' Asa main basis of this 

 conclusion, he imputes to me either (according to the intended 

 sense of " verlangen lauter Mononyme ") a strong desire for 

 mononyms, or a demand for them to the exclusion of all polyo- 

 nyms. Since the foregoing extracts might well indicate the 

 existence of a divergence, wide, radical and irreconcilable, be- 

 tween the neural terminology preferred by me and that recom- 

 mended by the Gesellschaft, attention is asked to the following 

 statistics : 



ia) Among the (about) 540 terms on the German list 

 there are about 100 concerning which I refrain from expressing 

 an opinion ; my doubts are indicated sometimes by blanks in 

 the second column, and sometimes by interrogation points. 



ip) Among the (say) 440 remaining, the following are so 

 commonly employed that I claim no especial credit for having 

 adopted many of them so long ago as 1880 or 1881 : — Nerous, 

 ganglion, ramus communicans, ramus anastomoticus, nervus cutan- 

 eus, 7ie}i'us muscularis, plexus nervonim spinalium, lobi cerebn 

 (^frontalis, parietalis, occipitalis et tempos alls), cminentia collatcr- 

 alis, fornix, tapetum, putamen, claustrum, pulvinar, t) actus opticus, 

 mesencephalofi, cerebellum, decussatio pyramidum. 



(c) Among the (say) 420 remaining, respecting at least 105 

 (about one-fourth) there is complete, or practically complete, 

 concordance between the German committee and myself; of 

 these, several were adopted between 1880 and 1882, and nearly 

 all prior to the report of the German committee. 



' Is it permissible to entertain the hypothesis that not the least operative of 

 these deterrent "historic principles" are an indifference to what is done in 

 America, and an indisposition to recognize value therein ? 



