148 BIOLOGICAL LECTURES. 



I think, a sound proposition that the introduction of any deriva- 

 tive, oblique case, or national paronym practically renders the 

 introducer responsible for the actual or potential Latin antecedent 

 of such words, in accordance with the itsual rules of derivation 

 and paronymy. I do not remember seeing the foregoing propo- 

 sition distinctly formulated, 1 but reflection will show its sound- 

 ness. One of the wisest recommendations of the A. A. A. S. 

 Committee on Biological Nomenclature (p. 130) was that the 

 Latin (international) form of a term should always be given, 

 whether or not the national paronyms. Now cava is the femi- 

 nine form of cavus, and vena cava was used (perhaps not in the 

 specific modern sense) by Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 2, 55, 

 38. 2 There seems to have been no classic adjective, although 

 cavatus^ the particle of cavo, was available as such. Analogy 

 fully warrants (pp. 139 et seq.} the acceptance of cava as a sub- 

 stantive, and the derivation therefrom of a secondary adjective 

 in the form of either cavatus or cavalis. The latter evidently 

 was chosen (constructively) by Owen when (in 1862, " On the 

 Aye- Aye," Zool. Trans., V, 86, and perhaps earlier) he em- 

 ployed post-caval vein and pre-caval vein. Later the hyphen 

 was omitted, and in the Comparative Anatomy of Vertebrates 

 occur " postcaval vein, postcaval trunk, postcaval orifice, and 

 postcaval," I, 503-505; II, 203; III, 552 et seq. Pending the 

 discovery in Owen's writings of some history of the stages by 

 which the final reduction was effected, the following series is 

 certainly thinkable: (i) Vena cava posterior, (2) Posterior vena 

 cava, (3) Posterior caval vein, (4) Post, caval vein, (5) Post- 

 caval vein, (6) Postcaval vein, (7) Postcaval, (8) Postcava. 

 Whatever may have been the actual steps, never did Owen 

 reach a more commendable terminologic result, and no case 

 better exemplifies the unwisdom of the reactionary attitude of 

 the German committee. 



Since Professor His offers no specific objections to postcava, 

 their nature can only be inferred from his general remarks and 



1 It probably has been in purely linguistic connections. My suggestion that 

 the principle apply likewise to zoologic names (" Amphibia or Batrachia," Science, 

 Aug. 20, 1897, p. 295) has been repelled with a needless asperity (Science, Sept. 3, 



PP- 372-373). 



2 For some discussion of cava see Hyrtl, ('80), 98, 99. 



