1 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



Commission but with some difference of meanmg ; is terms previously 

 adopted by other American Societies ; and 259 that have not been 

 adopted by any society hitherto. Compared also with the German 

 list, the recommendations of the American Association are possibly less 

 representative of existing usage by anatomists, especially human anat- 

 omists. 



The aim throughout has been the adoption of terms which accord 

 with the principles of nomenclature laid down by the Commitree on 

 Biological Nomenclature of the American Association for the Advance- 

 ment of Science, and when contrasted with older usages, there are 

 many differences which in general are also simplifications. In most 

 cases, this is due to either (a) a reduction of terms of two (or more) words 

 to a single word term by dropping one of them as unessential, ^gener- 

 ally the substantive; or (b) by incorporating the adjective with the 

 noun as a prefix. In some few instances the German Commission had 

 introduced the same simplification by dropping a useless word, as thal- 

 arnus (opticus) pons (Varolii) etc. The employment of dorsal and ven- 

 tral for posterior and anterior should also be emphasized. In a large 

 number of cases, the terms are essentially distinct from those generally 

 accepted, and are employed apparently by but few neurologists. In 

 general, however, they have the recommendation of brevity and are 

 descriptive or locative. 



A judgment of the recommendation as a whole is rather difficult ; 

 where there is departure from the recommendations of the German 

 Nomenclature Commission, it is generally in the direction of a simpli- 

 fication purchased often by the introduction of new terms not recog- 

 nized by general usage. " General usage," it must be remembered, 

 however, has in many cases no real existence. Indeed, the fact that 

 committees of societies have been appointed in Germany, England and 

 America for the regulation of anatomical nomenclature evidences the 

 need felt by working anatomists, of a uniform system of appropriate 

 terms. Many of the terms generally employed are admitted long and 

 unwieldy, and the attitude of American Anatomists toward the present 

 recommendations must be determined by the recognition that it is the 

 difficult question ol in how far it is best to supplant that which is older 

 by that which may be better, — abstractly considered; and if changes 

 are needed, how rapidly may they be wisely introduced. It is the old 

 antagonism of radicalism and conservatism. 



The report of the Minority offers nothing that can afford help. It 

 contains no comment upon any term of group of terms, but consists 

 simjily in a general protest against what is termed " Dr. Wildcr's Sys- 



