NOMENCLATURE OF DISEASE. 25 



The name of a disease, it has been well said, ought to be of 

 such a nature that, as in the science of chemistry, anyone 

 knowing only moderately well the principles of the science 

 ought at once on hearing it to have a not unjust idea of its 

 nature and character — that the name, in short, ought to be an 

 epitome of the definition. 



This of course may also be objected to, seeing that the de- 

 tinition of disease drawn from an appreciation of certain 

 proximate causes is ever, with a change of views regarding 

 such cause, Hable to express what would be considered an 

 error. 



From the earliest times when men have observed diseases, 

 names have been given to these expressive of very different 

 ideas, and drawn from very various sources. Some have been 

 named from the parts affected ; some from the leading or 

 characteristic feature or features; some from a peculiar 

 physical character of the results of the local diseased action ; 

 and some from the situations or localities where first observed 

 or most usually encountered. 



There is no doubt that the nomenclature of disease will 

 change as knowledge of disease becomes more precise and 

 definite ; but merely to change a name because we fancy that 

 it has hitherto incorrectly had attached to it a certain assem- 

 blage of symptoms which we now believe are the result of 

 some cause other than the one formerly credited with their 

 production is unwise, seeing our knowledge of these matters is 

 liable to change. 



As has been justly said, no one has a call to change an old 

 name when this has been largely recognised ; certainly to a 

 new disease, as to a new object, he who indicates its existence 

 is rightfully entitled to give it a name. 



Classification. — Having described and defined our disease, 

 as also given to it a name, it is of advantage to arrange these 

 diseases, which we now look upon as veritable entities, m 

 groups and orders. 



No doubt there are good and sufficient grounds to be urged 

 by those who have propounded and who support the very 

 different principles upon which the classification of diseases 

 has been l3ased. Being, in the majority of instances, a matter 

 of convenience and facility for carrying out certain definite 



