EDITORIAL. , 



Clearness and Uniformity in Neurological Descriptions. 



In the review of Haller's work on the fish-brain in another 

 column of this number Professor Edinger, of the editorial staff 

 of this Journal, makes a number of suggestions which we 

 deem of great practical importance and which we commend to the 

 careful consideration of our readers. The writer takes the more 

 pleasure in calling attention to these incisive criticisms of neu- 

 rological writings because he himself has fallen under the lash 

 of the same criticism in a recent work of Dr. Edinger. This 

 criticism he thought not wholly deserved, yet, as a sinner in 

 these directions, he may appropriately exhort fellow-sinners to 

 mend their ways. 



Every one who has undertaken the study of the brains of any 

 type knows how impossible it is to secure any adequate idea of 

 what has been done by his predecessors in that direction. It 

 is true that American writers usually attempt to go over the 

 literature of German, French and English neurology before 

 publishing, while very few of the German authors betray a 

 knowledge of anything that has been done on this side of the 

 Atlantic. But, as well said by Professor Edinger, to most of us 

 the writings of v. Gudden and much of Meynert's work remain 

 a sealed book. This is due in part to unnecessary involution 

 of descriptions, but chiefly to the use of an unexplained term- 

 inology and the lack of detailed figures. The writer gladly 

 seconds the recommendation that all figures be supplied with 

 adequate reference letters fully explained in an accessible part 

 of the paper or, better still, that all plates have full data printed 

 on the plate. It is certainly desirable that there should be as 

 many synthetic diagrams as possible, but we should prefer that 

 there should also be given full illustrations of the actual prepar- 



