332 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



that a principle, if right, cannot be carried too far ;"^ (Barclay). 

 In this connection may be appropriately quoted the verse from 

 Horace : 



* ' Est modus in rebus ; sunt ceiii denique fines. 

 Ultra citraque neqiiit consistere rectum.'' 



§261. B. Suggestions to American Anatomists. — Circum- 

 stances have precluded the possibility of submitting either the 

 manuscript or the proofs of this article to other members of the 

 American committees. Hence their responsibility for its con- 

 tents must be limited strictly by their official recommendation 

 of certain terms or principles, and by the usages embodied in 

 their individual publications. I hope they will join in whatever 

 discussion of the general subject may be aroused by this article 

 freely and without apprehension that opposition to my views 

 will affect my personal or official relations. All I ask of them 

 is the clear recognition of all the conditions. 



§262, Perhaps my own view of what the conditions really 

 are may be most conveniently introduced by a commentary 

 upon a paragraph in the address of the president of the Asso- 

 ciation of American Anatomists a year ago. Professor Dwight 

 said ('95) : 



" German anatomists have recently adopted a report prepared 

 by some of their number working in company with representatives of 

 other European countries. It is for us to consider whether this one can 

 be looked upon as accepted and whether it is acceptable ; whether we 

 can join hands with our foreign colleagues, or whether we can devise 

 an American nomenclature which shall be so much better that we can 

 disregard the inconvenience of a distinct standard. We have had 

 for years a committee on Anatomical Nomenclature, with Professor 

 Wilder for secretary, who has given so large a part of his busy life to 

 this matter. We may expect an important contribution to the matter 

 in the report of this committee." 



^ Illustrations may be found in the record of my own terminologic progress, 

 Part II, in the rigid insistence at various stages upon the indispensabiiity of 

 words in Latin form (1880-1S83), and upon idionyms or terms absolutely free 

 from ambiguity (prior to 1895). Cerebrocortex &nA. cerebellocortex were products 

 of the too general (and yet never sweeping) application of the principle of 

 mononymy. 



