he, oF 
| 
0) 
in 
ON THE VERTEBRATE SKELETON. LO 
malogy,’ should protest against the combination of the Greek prefix to the 
Latin noun, I can only plead that servility to a particular source of the fluc- 
tuating sounds of vocal language is a matter of taste; and that it seems no 
unreasonable privilege to use such elements as the servants of thought; 
and, in the interests of science, to combine them, even though they come from 
_ different countries, where the required duty is best and most expeditiously 
performed by such association. 
For the same motive that suggested the term basi-occipital, viz. because 
the anthropotomist has been 
long accustomed to hear 
that and the corresponding 
element of the sphenoid 
bone described as ‘basilar 
processes,’ I propose to sub- 
stitute the term ‘ basisphe- 
noid’ (basisphenoideum, Lat.) 
for the three different de- 
scriptive phrases applied to 
the part (5, figs. 2, 5, 19,&c.) 
by Cuvier, for the two ad- 
ditional synonyms of Geof- 
froy, and for the ‘sphenoi- 
deum basilare’ of Hallmann. 
‘ Alisphenoid’ (alisphenot- 
deum, Lat., 6, 6, figs. 2.5, 19, : 
&e.) seemed to retain most of Disarticulated mesencephalic or neuro-parietal arch, viewed 
the old anthroputomical term etre ta ak ae 
of ‘alze majores,’ or wings ‘ par excellence’ of the os sphenoideum ; as ‘ orbito- 
sphenoid’ (orbito- sphenoideum, 10, 10, figs. 3 and 20) best recalls or expresses 
the idea conveyed by the descriptive phrase ‘ale orbitales,’ or ‘ailes orbi- 
taires,’ often applied to the homologous bones, regarded as processes of the 
sphenoid in human anatemy. Here, however, in reference to the alisphenoid, 
we find the first marked discrepancy in the conclusions of the anatomists 
who have particularly studied its special homologies. The bone which ap- 
pears as the ‘grande aile du sphénoide’ to Cuvier and Agassiz in fishes, is 
the ‘petrosum’ to Hallmann and Wagner ; it is also ‘rocher’ (petrosal) to 
Cuvier himself in reptiles, and is again ‘ grande aile du sphénoide’ in birds 
and mammals.. The reasons which have led me to the conclusion that the 
bones so denominated, as well as the ‘ ptéreal’ and ‘ prérupeal’ of Geoffroy, 
are homologously one and the same, are so intimately linked with the con- 
sideration of the true petrosal and of other elements of the anthropotomist’s 
‘temporal bone,’ that I reserve the discussion of these questions until I have 
completed the apology for the names proposed in the first column of Table I. 
The ‘parietal’ (parietale, Lat.,7.7, figs. 2,5, 19, &c.) and ‘ mastoid’ (mastoi- 
deum, Lat., 8, 8, figs. 2, 5,19, &c.) are amongst the few bones that have had 
the good fortune to receive, originally, definite names, applicable to them 
throughout the vertebrate series; although the mastoid, being like the par- 
occipital, essentially a parapophysis, loses its individuality sooner than do 
other bones of its segment, and becomes, therefore, a ‘processus mastoideus 
ossis temporis,’ in the language of anthropotomy. ‘The homology of the 
‘parietal’ has fortunately been, with a single exception, universally recog- 
nised throughout the vertebrate subkingdom ; the exception being furnished 
by the eccentric homologist Geoffroy, who is, as usual, inconsistent with 
himself, even on this plainest and least mistakeable point. 
