572 



SCIENCK 



[N. S. Vol. IX. No. 225 



but I have lacked the courage [time ?] to bring them 

 before my colleagues. Now that he has broken 

 ground, those vrho prefer a rational nomenclature to 

 one which, like the present reigning one, is based 

 upon erroneous principles, or rather on no principles 

 at all, ■will be rejoiced at the precedent thus set for 

 innovations. * * * He who has himself been com- 

 pelled to labor under the curse of the old system, the 

 beneath, belotc, under, in front of, inside, external, be- 

 tween, etc., will look upon. the simple ventral, dorsah 

 lateral, mesa!, cephalic, proximal, caudal, distal, etc' 

 as so many boons. I have no hesitation in saying 

 that the labor of the anatomical student will be di- 

 minished fully one-half when this nomenclature shall 

 have been definitely adopted. * * * In proceeding 

 to comment on some of the terms proposed by Pro- 

 fessor "Wilder, I wish it to be distinctly understood 

 that I do so merely tentatively and to promote dis- 

 cussion ; in so doing I feel certain that I am carrying 

 out that writer's wishes. It is but just to state that 

 the majority of the terms cannot be discussed ; they 

 are perfection and simplicity combined." 



Had Dr. Spitzka completed his proposed 

 work he would doubtless have called atten- 

 tion to our three British predecessors, John 

 Barclay, Richard Owen and P. H. Pye- 

 Smith. 



The first, as long ago as 1803, in ' A New 

 Anatomical Nomenclature,' proposed the un- 

 ambiguous descriptive terms, dorsal, lateral' 

 proximal, with their adverbial forms, dorsad, 

 laterad and proximad, and thus laid the 

 foundation for an intrinsic toponymy. 



In 1846 Owen published (' Report on the 

 Vertebrate Skeleton,' p. 171) what I have 

 elsewhere (' Neural Terms,' § 51) called the 

 'immortal paragraph,' wherein the various 

 phrases for the spinal portion of the central 

 nervous system were replaced by the single 

 word, myelon. Twenty years later he ut- 

 tered (' Anatomy of Vertebrates,' I. ,294) a 

 declaration which some of us are disposed 

 to regard as an inspired prophecy : 



"Whoever will carry out the application of neat 

 substantive names to the homologous parts of the en- 

 cephalon will perform a good work in true anatomy." 

 In the third volume of the same work (1868, p. 136) 

 is a list of the cerebral fissures designated, in most 

 cases, by adjectives of a single word each, e. g., sub- 

 frontal. 



The paper of Pye-Smith (fortunately 

 still spared to us) was entitled ' Suggestions 

 on Some Points of Anatomical Nomencla- 

 ture,' and appeared in 1877 {Journal oj 

 Anatomy and Physiology, XII., 154-175, Oc- 

 tober, 1877). After enunciating certain 

 sound general prnciples, he declared that 

 ' the nomenclature of the brain stands moi-e 

 in need of revision than that of any other 

 part,' and made several specific suggestions 

 some of which have been adopted by the 

 three American Associations and the Ana- 

 tomische Gesellschaft : 



"The term optic thalamus is a misleading and cum- 

 brous abbreviation of the proper name thalamus ner- 

 vorum opiicorum, and the name thalamus, without 

 qualification, is at once distinctive, convenient, and 

 free from a false suggestion as to the function of the 

 part. * * * Of all the synonyms of the Hippocampus 

 minor {Ergot of Morand, eminentia unciformis, collicu- 

 lus, ungtiis, calcar avis) the last is the most distinc- 

 tive, and brings it at once into relation with the cal- 

 carine fissure. The Hippocampus major may then drop 

 the adjective, as well as its synonym of cornu am- 

 monis. The pineal and pituitary bodies are more con- 

 veniently called conariuyn and hypophysis. * * * The 

 word Pons (Varolii) might well be restricted to the 

 great transverse commissure of the cerebellum. * * * 

 Instila is a far more distinctive name than any pro- 

 posed to replace it." Pye-Smith also prefers vag-usto 

 ' pneumogastricus. ' (p. 162). 



Those who have done me the honor to read 

 any one of my longer papers on this subject 

 will recall my repeated acknowledgments of 

 indebtedness to these three English anato- 

 mists. Not to mention earlier publications, 

 in 1889, in the article ' Anatomical Termi- 

 nology ' (' Reference Handbook of the 

 Medical Sciences,' VIII., 520-5 22), Profes- 

 sor Gage and I collected from all sources 

 accessible to us ' Aphorisms respecting No- 

 menclature; ' the most prolific sources were 

 the three just named. At the third meet- 

 ing of this Association , in Boston , December, 

 1890, I read a paper the title of which was 

 ' Owen's Nomenclature of the Brain,' and 

 which included this paragraph : 



"In none of the above-designated publications or 

 in those of other anatomists does it now seem to the 



