4 ANATOMICAL NOMENCLATURE 



one which resulted finally in the production of the BNA. The Society in that 

 year voted that its officers undertake at once a revision of anatomical terms, 

 with the hope of remedying the obvious evils existing. No sooner did these 

 officers begin their work, however, than unforeseen difficulties began to appear, 

 and these did not lessen in number or significance as the work progressed. 

 Anatomists may rejoice that the difficulties were not insuperable. How they 

 were overcome and what the results achieved were, I shall try to explain in the 

 paragraphs which succeed. 



The Scope of the Work and the Workers. 



It soon became clear that a permanent commission on terminology could 

 deal more effectively with the problem than the officers of the Society. Again, 

 an editor-in-chief, who should devote himself almost entirely to the work for a 

 number of years, must of necessity be appointed. These suggestions, emanating 

 from Professor His, were adopted by the Society in 1889. The Commission on 

 Nomenclature was at once appointed, with Professor von Kolliker as Chairman 

 and Professors O. Hertwig, His, Kollmann, Merkel, Schwalbe, Toldt, Waldeyer, 

 and v. Bardeleben as members, a list of names as likely, surely, as any that 

 could have been chosen to insure success from the start. 



This Commission began its work most happily by securing the services of 

 Professor W. Krause, of Berlin, as editor-in-chief. Krause's literary ability 

 made the choice especially suitable. During the six years' work which fol- 

 lowed his appointment he set an example, his collaborators tell us, of indefati- 

 gable diligence and inexhaustible patience. The necessary correspondence 

 of such an editor was almost interminable; letters often passed to and fro for weeks 

 in order to set a single term right or to get it into its proper place in the list. 



The cost of the undertaking was a matter for early consideration. The 

 work, while largely a labor of love, entailed unavoidably certain expenses. The 

 original estimate of the Commission of 10,000 marks ($2500) was exceeded 

 only a little. It seems almost incredible that the work could have been accom- 

 plished with so small an outlay. A large proportion of the cost (some 8090 

 marks) was defrayed by the scientific academies of Munich, Berlin, Vienna, 

 Leipsic, and Hungary; the rest of the amount (3800 marks) was contributed by 

 the Anatomical Society itself. 



The exact scope of the work had, of course, to be clearly before the minds 

 of the members of the Commission from the outset. It was decided, therefore, 

 to consider descriptive anatomy solely, and this only in as far as the structures are 

 visible to the naked eye or through a simple hand lens. No attempts were to 

 be made to settle the terminology in domains of lively contemporary investi- 

 gation, nor were the terms of microscopic anatomy to be included. The list 

 was to be constructed in one language viz.: Latin; those who use the termi- 

 nology were left, therefore, to translate, at will, the terms more or less freely, 

 into their own tongues. 



The question in how far the terminology should attempt to be international 

 in character was a delicate one for the Commission to determine. The Anatomi- 

 cal Society, while organized in Germany and meeting usually only in cities in 

 which the German language is spoken, has never been exclusively German in 

 membership or character. Indeed, the list of members includes names from 

 America, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Hungary, Italy, Russia, 

 Sweden, and Switzerland. The majority of members are German, it is true; 

 in 1895 there were 145 German members to 129 members belonging to other 

 countries. A society with such a membership might, perhaps, without criticism, 



