302 
are better represented by Fig. 1. But since physicians deal with the 
bodies of others, and not their own, the objection on this account 
has little practical importance. Fig. 2, therefore, represents the position 
which best responds to the demands of practical utility +). 
Another perhaps 
stronger argument in 
favor of the adoption 
of the “dorsal-upward” 
method of illustrating 
transverse sections 
arises from the side 
of comparative anatomy. 
Although the importance 
of this branch in its re- 
lation to human anatomy 
has received somewhat 
tardy recognition, it is 
now universally admitted 
that it is impossible to 
understand human ana- 
tomy thoroughly without 
making a comparative 
study of the lower ani- 
mals. In comparative 
anatomy cross sections 
of the body are almost 
invariably represented, 
as in Fig. 2, with the 
dorsal surface upward, 
toward the top of the 
page. The reason for the rule is doubtless the fact that this form re- 
presents the typical vertebrate position, the spinal canal and 
dorsal surface being above the central axis, the body cavity and ven- 
tral surface below. It is self-evident, therefore, that in order to facili- 
tate a direct comparison of the work done in the fields of human and 
comparative anatomy, the same standard of position, the “dorsal- 
upward”, should be adopted for both. 
1) Similar arguments are valid in the case of coronal sections in 
favor of representing, as a general rule, the anterior surface, i. e. the 
section as viewed from in front. 
