326 
do those who regard linguistic purity with higher respect, but because 
the system is insufficient and unsymmetrical. 
This last objection applies with equal force to some of the terms 
proposed by Buckman and Bather. These gentlemen were ham- 
pered by the desire to perpetuate the older terms now in use in this 
country and for which I alone am unluckily responsible. This is also 
my own condition, and although I would willingly now suggest an 
entirely new method, I find after having framed and tested a new one, 
that it is better not to interfere any farther than is absolutely neces- 
sary with the nomenclature of 1888. 
The table printed below, Table II, therefore, is made up of a set 
of terms which are substantially the same as those suggested by Buck- 
man and Bather, except in the use of Nepionic, and in it I have also 
followed a suggestion kindly sent me in a letter by Mr. Buckman in 
adopting the prefixes »ana«, » metac and »para« for the designation of 
the substages of development. ‘This has the great advantage of adding 
to the means of expressing observations accurately, quite as well as 
the use of an entirely distinct word and at the same time preserving 
in each term a direct reference to the period to which it belongs. Thus 
one can speak of the metanepionie or ananeanic substage without 
referring to the stage in which they occur, and yet the reader will 
at once recognize to what stage the substage mentioned is to be re- 
ferred. 
Recent researches have in my opinion clearly demonstrated that 
all stages of development from 2—4 inclusive like the embryonic 
stage, 1), and the senile stage, 5), will have to be subdivided in study- 
ing many groups. These subdivisions are also relatively important 
and their differences are often well defined. 
I now propose the following nomenclature which does, it is hoped, 
fuller justice to every stage”. 
7 It is my grateful duty to add that I have had the unremitting help of Dr. C. 
E. Beecher of New Haven, and have consulted with Dr. Jackson of Cambridge 
and Mr. Clarke of Albany and also with Mr. Buckman, and I wish to express to 
these gentlemen my indebtedness for suggestions and advice of essential importance. 
Except in the retention of one term »Nepionic« the nomenclature is more theirs than 
mine. I also desire to thank Prof. Reynolds of New Haven and Prof. William 
Goodwin of Cambridge for the earnest help they contributed to the formation of 
a table of terms which for reasons given above was not used, as well as for advice 
which influenced the framing of the one finally adopted. 
