172 REPORT—1846. 
part in question is neither named nor described. The term supra-occipitale, 
Lat. (supra-occipital, Eng., sur-occipital, Fr.), is obviously a gain to anatomical 
science in all propositions respecting this part in the vertebrate series. 
Certain parts of a vertebra, distinct bones at an early period in man, and 
throughout life in most reptiles, are defined by Soemmerring as ‘ radices ar- 
cls posterioris vertebree,’ or ‘ arcus posterior vertebre ’ collectively *. Monro 
describes the same parts separately, as “a broad oblique bony plate extended 
backwards,” and together, as “a bony arch produced backwards”: he names, 
defines and minutely describes the processes, &c. of these bony plates, which 
in the series of Vertebrata are soon found to be non-essential characters ; but 
for the plates themselves, which are the most constant and essential consti- 
tuents of a vertebra, he hasno name. Dr. Quain defines the same parts as “ two 
plates of bone, the lamellz or arches, which complete the central foramen +.” 
They are sometimes more briefly but vaguely spoken of in English works 
of Comparative Anatomy as “the vertebral lamelle” or “ vertebral lamine,” 
or “ perivertebral elements.” The term ‘ newrapophysis, Lat. and Eng. (‘ neur- 
apophyse, Fr.), applicable to each element individually, under which all its 
properties may be predicated of by the adjective ‘ neurapophysial,’ without 
periphrasis, seems by its adoption in the classical works of MM. Agassiz 
and Stannius, to be as acceptable as the term ‘sur-occipital’ substituted by 
Cuvier for the definitions in anthropotomy above cited. 
Similar instances of the absence of determinate names, capable of in- 
flection, for parts of the human frame, will be seen in the last column of 
Taste I., and others will occur to the anatomist, even in regard to most 
important parts, as the primary natural divisions of the neural axis, for 
example, to the great hindrance of brief, clear and intelligible descriptions. 
So long as the phrases ‘marrow of the spine,’ ‘chord of the spine,’ continue 
to usurp the place of a proper name, all propositions concerning their sub- 
ject must continue to be periphrastic, and often also dubious. Thus if the 
pathologist, speaking of diseases of the spinal marrow, desires to abbreviate 
his proposition by speaking of ‘ spinal disease,’ he is liable to be misunder- 
stood as referring to disease of the spinal or vertebral column. The vague, 
but often-used phrase ‘chorda dorsalis’ for the embryonic fibro-gelatinous 
basis of the spine, adds another source of confusion likely to arise from the 
use of the term ‘spinal chord,’ as applied to that most important part of the 
neural axis which I have proposed to call ‘Myelon{,’ a term which, if adopted, 
would be attended by this advantage, that no ambiguity could arise in speak- 
ing of ‘ myelonal functions,’ ‘myelonal affections,’ or other properties of this 
part of the central axis of the nervous system. 
Anthropotomy, in respect to its nomenclature, or rather the want of one, 
is, as I have already remarked, not unlike what botany was before the time of 
Linnzus, and we may anticipate the happiest effects from a judiciously re- 
formed technical language in the advancerrent of the true and philosophic 
knowledge of the human structure, from the rapid progress of botany when. 
the opposition raised by sloth or envy to the Linnzan reforms was overcome. 
For a good general anatomical nomenclature, based and regulated upon the 
principles above defined, must reflect its benefits upon anthropotomy. 1 dare 
not flatter myself that the names adopted or proposed for the Osseous System 
of the Vertebrata in my ‘ Hunterian Lectures’and in the first column of TableI. 
will meet at once with acceptance, but the attempt to establish such a nomen- 
clature will be felt to have been an indispensable step in undertaking a general 
survey of the homological relations of the vertebrate skeleton. 
* De Corporis Humani Fabrica, 1794, t. i. pp. 235, 236. 
+ Elements of Descriptive and Practical Anatomy, 8vo, 1828, p. 121. 
t Hunterian Lectures, vol. ii. ‘ Vertebrata,’ part ip. 172. 
——” 
