180 REPORT—1846. 
Theterm ‘presphenoid’ (presphenoideum, Lat.o, figs. 3, 5,20, 24, 25,&c.) is pro- 
posed for the ‘sphénoide antérieur,’ on the principle of substituting, as the better 
instrument of thought, a definite name for a descriptive phrase. For the same 
reason ‘postfrontal’ ( postfron- : 
tale, Lat., 12, 12, figs. 3, 5,20, &e.) Fig. 3. 
is substituted for Cuvier’s ‘ fron- 
tal postérieur’ and its synonyms. 
The ‘frontal’ (frontale, Lat. u1, 
figs. 3, 5, 20, &e.) and ‘ vomer’ 
(vomer, Lat., 13, figs.4, 5, 20, 25), 
are among the few bones which 
have had their special homolo- 
gies recognised unanimously 
throughout the vertebrate sub- 
kingdom ; in the one case even 
without departure from the 
original anthropotomical name, 
and in the other, with but a 
single deviation from the esta- 
blished nomenclature. But when 
Geoffroy was induced to reject 
the term ‘vomer’ as being ap- 
plicable only to the peculiar 
form of the bone in a small 
proportion of the vertebrata, he 
appears not to have considered 
that the old term, in its wider 
application, would be used with- 68 
out reference to its primary Disarticulated — = a a arch, viewed 
allusion to the ploughshare, and 
that becoming, as it has, a purely arbitrary term, it is superior and prefer- 
able to any partially descriptive one. ‘ Rhinosphénal,’ it is true, recalls the 
idea of the vomer forming the continuation in the nasal segment of the skull 
of the basi- and pre-sphenoidal series of bones in other segments; but ‘ vomer,’ 
used arbitrarily, summons equally every idea derived to form the complex 
whole from the general study of the bone throughout the vertebrate series. 
‘Prefrontal’ (prefrontale, Lat., 14, 14, f 
figs. 4, 5, 21, &c.) claims the same pre- Fig. 4. 
ference over anterior frontal, and its 
foreign equivalents, as does postfrontal 
over its synonymous phrases. There is 
also another reason for proposing the 
term ; viz. because it is applied to bones 
in the vertebrate series generally, accord- 
ing to conclusions as to their homologi- 
eal relations, which differ from those to 
which Cuvier and Geoffroy had arrived. 
The discussion of the discordant deno- 
minations at present applied to this im- 
portant element of the skull will be fully 
carried out in the sequel. ‘Nasal’ Disarticulated rhinencephalic, or neuro-nasal arch, 
(nasal, 15, figs. 4, 5,21, &c.) is another Weve om Denes SO . 
of the few instances in which it is possible to retain and generally apply an 
old and received anthropotomical term. No one, it is presumed, will con- 
