APKIL21, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



569 



names for as mauj' as possible of the parts 

 most frequentlj' mentioned. Nevertheless, 

 the misapprehension on this point ought to 

 be corrected. The facts are : 



First, out of about 540 neural terms in the 

 B. N". A. at least 40, about one- fourteenth, 

 are mononj'ms. 



Secondly, in the 'Majority Report', in 

 Tables C and D, are enumerated 274 terms 

 differing more or less from those adopted 

 by the Gesellschaft ; the mononyms num- 

 ber only 103. 



IX. That eminence as an anatomist neces- 

 sarily implies either the capacity or the disposi- 

 tion to deal loisely with questions of nomencla- 

 ture. — Upon this point I quote from •Con- 

 cluding Remarks' in 'Neural Terms,' p. 329: 



Caution in Publishing iV«o Terms. — It is true that 

 wortls needlessly introduced into anatomy have no 

 such embarrassing permanency as is conventionally 

 assigned to synonyms in systematic zoiilogy. Never- 

 theless, for a time at least, they encumber current 

 publications and dictionaries. Hence, however neces- 

 sary and legitimate they may seem to the framer, 

 neither a new term, nor an old one in a new sense, 

 should be actually published without prolonged con- 

 sideration, and consultation with at least four indi- 

 viduals representing as many categories of possible 

 critics : (a) an investigator of the same general sub- 

 ject; (6) an experienced teacher; (c) an earnest stu- 

 dent; {d) a philologic expert whose admiration for 

 the past has not blinded him to the needs of the pre- 

 sent and the future. 



Method of Introduction of New Terms. — As urgently 

 recommended by the A. A. A. S. Committee on Bio- 

 logical Nomenclature, whenever a technical word is 

 used for the first time the author should give in 

 a special note: (n) the Latin form; (i) the etymol- 

 ogy; (c) the proper adopted form or paronym for his 

 own language, with the adjective, etc., when applica- 

 ble; [d) as concise and precise a definition as pos- 

 sible. 



X. Tliat among the terms included in the 

 ' Majority Report ' any considerable number 

 have been specifically condemned by the Anatom- 

 ische Gesellschaft or its authorized representa- 

 tives. 



XI. That the grounds of such objections as 

 have been offered are really sound and sufficient. 



XII. TJiat the condemnation of a term by an 

 anatomic authority disproves either its intrinsic 

 fitness or its promise of vitality. — On this point 

 there need be adduced only the cases of 

 radius and ulna, which Robert Hunter de- 

 nounced as ' ridiculous.' 



XIII. That the anatomy of the future is to be 

 based upon the structure and erect attitude of the 

 human body. — The anatomists of the future 

 will be zootomists first and anthropotomists 

 afterward. 



XIV. That every anatomic term shoidd be an 

 absolute idionym, i. e., perfectly explicit in itself. 

 — Since this requirement is implied in the 

 objections to aida, etc., by KoUiker, and to 

 medipedunculus by His,* there may be prop- 

 erly adduced from the B. X. A. the follow- 

 ing terms, whose esplicitness is conditioned 

 upon either the context or the actual addi- 

 tion of the words here set in brackets : 

 clivus [^occipitalis], and [sphenoidalis'] ; pro- 

 cessus coronoideus [idnce] and [mandibuloe]; 

 processus styloideus [_radi{] , [idnce'] , and [_ossis 

 te^nporalis'] . Unless, indeed, it be granted 

 that a certain degree of explicitness is 

 afforded by the context, every one of the 

 thousands of names of the parts of the 

 human body should be increased by the 

 phrase corporis humani. 



XV. That the occasional employment, by a 

 member of an Association, or even by a member of 

 its Committee on Nomenclature, of terms other 

 than those adopted by them is, in itself, evidence 

 of deliberate intention. — For example, after 

 using conarium for fifteen years in place of 

 'pineal body,' etc., now that the argu- 

 ments of Spitzka and H. F. Osborn have 

 converted me to epiphysis, conarium occa- 

 sionally gets itself spoken. Indeed, it is 

 easy for me to understand that an unin- 

 tended but familiar word may be written, 

 re- written, and even overlooked in the proof. 

 The frequency of such lapses could be 

 shown, if necessarj', by letters from numer- 



*As stated and briefly discussed in ' Neural Terms,' 

 pp. 282-289. 



