336 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



ages just referred to, it seems to me that Dr. Dwight's closing 

 words convey a similar gloomy impression, and that they pre- 

 sent alternatives too widely divergent. 



§273. As may be seen from Parts IV and V, with the 

 single exception of the German retention of anterior and poste- 

 rior (§§132, 192), between the German committee and the 

 American committees that had reported prior to the three ut- 

 terances referred to in the last paragraph, the actual differences 

 were simply trivial. Even the list adopted by the American 

 Neurological Association contains no unfamiliar term whatever.* 



§274. It must be remembered also that only neural terms 

 are here referred to. As well remarked by Pye-Smith {^TJ, 162) 

 and by His ('95, 155), encephalic nomenclature stands most in 

 need of revision and offers peculiar difficulties. With the other 

 regions of the body the conditions and necessities are far sim- 

 pler. Hence there is no probability that any action of Ameri- 

 can committees respecting anatomic nomenclature as a whole 

 could eventuate in the establishment of what could be regarded 

 justly as a " separate standard." A stronger phrase for the 

 hypothetic contingency could hardly be employed were the dif- 

 ferences between the two sets of names comparable with the 

 distinctions between the metric system and the English weights 

 and measures. 



§275. The address of Dr. Dwight contained no reference 

 to what has already been accomplished or proposed by Ameri- 

 can organizations. At that time, of course, the action of the 

 American Neurological Association had not been taken. But 

 the Association of American Anatomists and the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science (§§81-85) at vari- 

 ous periods between 1889 and 1892, had adopted unanimously 

 the recommendations of their three committees corresponding 

 with the first five sections of the report of the A. N. A. (§80). 



^The allegation of Professor His that my individual " proposals tend to cre- 

 ate a language entirely new and for the most part quite strange," has already 

 been met (§204). In matters non-scientific a deliberate exaggeration of like ex- 

 tent would probably receive a briefer and less euphemistic characterization. 



