I2 ANATOMICAL NOMENCLATURE 



wholly provisional in character. Only when time has brought a certain repose 

 to scientific activity in a given region do more permanent terms crystallize out. 



It should be easy in a country like America, for anatomists to agree with their 

 colleagues in the rest of the world upon the adoption of a common set of terms 

 for school use. It is fair to assume that the tendency to cooperation, so charac- 

 teristic of the energies of this country, notably manifest in industrial combinations 

 no less than in the team-work of athletes, will not be found lacking among 

 anatomists. 



Even when compromises have to be made, there is a certain special honor 

 and satisfaction to be derived from the sacrifices involved when they contribute 

 to the common weal. That some concessions must necessarily be made in using 

 the BNA cannot be denied; almost every cooperative measure demands some 

 self-denial among participants. This need not, however, be great. Where the 

 list does not supply in full the requirements of the individual teacher, there is 

 no reason why he should not extend it at will. On the other hand, where the 

 list contains terms in excess of the needs of a given instructor or school, it is an 

 easy matter to omit those which seem superfluous. It may seem a little hard 

 for one who has spoken of the "M. complexus" all his life to get used to call- 

 ing it the "M. semispinalis capitis," or for another who has been brought up 

 with an "anterior crural" to abandon it for the "femoral" nerve. But when 

 the good reasons for the change are known and appreciated, good- will will carry 

 one far. It is only when a term is found to be incompatible with one's scien- 

 tific convictions that reasonable difficulty arises. The BNA has, however, 

 been constructed with such great care and has so sedulously avoided affixing 

 labels to structures still in dispute that we need have little fear on that score. 

 Even should there be a few terms, or even a few hundred, which we find hard 

 at this time to digest, the general acceptance of the other 4000 will be a great 

 gain, cutting the labors of students, as it will, in two. 



That conditions will arise, perhaps soon, when another revision will be 

 desirable and demanded there can be no doubt. Investigation is ever extending; 

 our criteria of values are constantly changing; scientific needs in terminology 

 vary, in spite of us, with the years; at intervals revision becomes unavoidable. 

 But with foundations so well laid as in the BNA, a subsequent review should 

 be facilitated. The development of the BNA has taught us the necessity of 

 observing certain rules in the coining of new anatomical terms. If these rules be 

 good ones, the work of extension will be easy. It would not be difficult, for 

 instance, to merge the names of this list into a nomenclature which considers, 

 more satisfactorily than the BNA does, the needs to which a fusion of Human 

 Anatomy with Comparative Anatomy gives rise. And I, for one, hope that such 

 a "merger" may be promoted in our time. I trust too that, at another revision, 

 the terms in Professor Wilder's lists which differ from those of the BNA may be 

 carefully considered, and that his terms, where they are better than those of the 

 present BNA, may be adopted. 



Of one thing I am convinced, cooperation is, from now on, essential for 

 the welfare of a satisfactory anatomical language. Simplicity, accuracy, and 

 serial connection will be favored if anatomists agree to use terms, in common, 

 for the structures studied in the schools. The teacher's work will be simplified 

 and the pupil's task will be lightened; instruction will be unhampered, research 

 will flourish and anatomical science will gain in dignity and in precision. 



