130 BIOLOGICAL LECTURES. 



(a) " Terms relating to position and direction [toponyms] 

 should be intrinsic rather than extrinsic; that is, should refer 

 to the organism itself rather than to the external world." 



(b) " So far as possible, terms should be single, designatory 

 words [mononyms] rather than descriptive phrases." 



(c) Terms derived from the names of persons [eponyms] 

 should be avoided. 



(d) " Each term should have a Latin [international] form." 



(e) " Each term should have also a [national] form in accord- 

 ance with the genius of each modern language, e.g., a paronym 

 of the original Latin form." 



(/) The report gives due recognition of the labors of other 

 committees and of individuals. 



Returning to the report adopted by the American Neuro- 

 logical Association, its recommendations may be indicated 

 conveniently in Table I. 



It should be borne in mind that only the Latin names in 

 the first column have the sanction of the various associations 

 that have adopted them. The derivatives and the comments 

 thereon do not constitute parts of the reports. Indeed, as will 

 be seen, there is room for considerable latitude of opinion and 

 usage; my own views may be imperfect and even inconsistent, 

 but I think the analogies adduced are sound. 



English Plurals. The parts of the brain are so seldom 

 named in the plural that a separate column is not given there- 

 for. Analogy with crises, strata, fungi, algae, and phenomena 

 would justify the employment of the regular Latin plural in 

 certain cases, e.g., thalami, epiphyses, hippocampi, cornua, stri- 

 ata, and vertebrae. On the other hand, areas, vistas, hernias, 

 emporiums, lenses, geniuses, pianos, indexes, pericarps, angles, 

 atlases, diplomas, and similes are precedents for calcars, cJdas- 

 mas (or chiasms), falxes, hippocamps, insulas, mesencephals, 

 ponses, vermises. Bomises would even justify thalamuses, but 

 the length of the latter is objectionable. 



Close Resemblance of the Angloparonyms to the Latin Origi- 

 nals. This is so obvious as to hardly require mention. With 

 more than half the two forms are identical in spelling, so that 

 the Latinity of the originals can only be indicated to the eye 



