692 
reading of the paper has led me to make some 
notes which I should submit to the writer were 
we still associated and which I hope will not 
be without interest and profit to others. 
1. The Generic Name of the “ Gar.’—Mr. 
Chandler and the editors adopt Lepisosteus as 
introduced by Lacépéde in 1803 rather than 
Lepidosteus as corrected by the elder Agassiz 
and—till lately—almost universally employed. 
With all admiration for President Jordan 
(another former pupil who, I think, suggested 
or at least sanctioned the change), I feel that 
this is too rigid an application of the “ prior- 
ity rule.” Had an ignorant or heedless per- 
son first christened the “ duck-bill” as Orniso- 
rhynchus should we have perpetuated a 
blunder that would offend all scholars? I 
doubt it. Conceding, however, that in this 
matter each has a right to his own opinion 
and usage, I protest against the change in the 
title of my paper, “On the Brains of Amia,’ 
ete., where the original Lepidosteus is con- 
verted into Lepisosteus. I hold that the latter 
form has no etymologic standing, and—ex- 
cepting in quotation—would no more use it 
than a profane expletive. 
In this connection it may be properly men- 
tioned that the specific name of the “ alligator 
gar” is not tristechus, as used by Mr. 
Chandler on p. 87, but tristechus, from 
OTOLXOS. 
2. The Contour and Constitution of the 
Gar’s Brain.—The dorsal aspect is represented 
in the text-figure A. It is very unlike the cor- 
responding figure of Balfour and Parker as 
reproduced by Wiedersheim. Although I 
have exposed several gar brains, unable now 
to refer to them, I will not undertake to say 
which of these figures is the more nearly cor- 
rect; possibly difference of species or age may 
account for some discrepancies, certainly not 
for all. Chandler’s figure contains no indica- 
tion of the thalamic region (diencephalon or 
“+thalamencephalon”) or explanation of its 
omission. The outline is represented by a 
continuous line; it should be interrupted at 
the place of emergence of the olfactory nerves 
even if the nerves themselves are omitted. 
2 Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci., Proe., 1875. 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 905 
3. The Names of the Parts—Why should 
the two cephalic (“anterior”) pairs of lobes 
be designated as “anterior” and “ posterior 
lobes of the cerebrum” when there can be no 
doubt that the first pair are the hollow olfac- 
tory bulbs and the second the solid striata 
(unfortunately called “ prothalami” by me in 
1875)? And since the, so to speak, “ specific ” 
names of these two parts, of the “ optic lobes,” 
and of the “ trilobed cerebellum,” were deemed 
adequate for their designation, and since the 
segmental constitution and names were in no 
way concerned in the general treatment of the 
subject, why should the region supporting the 
newly described lymphoid structure be singled 
out for the application of the ponderous title, 
“myelencephalon” when “oblongata” or 
“medulla oblongata” would have sufficed? 
“ Oblongatal gland ” would be unobjectionable. 
Excepting, perhaps, his own coinage, “ Isth- 
mus rhombencephali,” for a region since com- 
monly admitted to be non-existent or negli- 
gible, myelencephalon is one of the most 
objectionable components of the neurologic 
nomenclature selected by the late Professor 
His, adopted by the Anatomische Gesell- 
schaft, and blindly, hastily or slavishly em- 
ployed by many in this country. Its only 
logical justification would be the adoption of 
Owen’s “myelon” in place of “medulla spi- 
nalis.” Even if myelencephalon is preferred, 
should not “‘ metencephalon ” have been added 
as a synonym? Jt is a more appropriate 
equivalent of Von Baer’s “ Nachhirn”; it is 
quite as familiar to most anatomists; it was 
preferred by the majority of the committee on 
nomenclature of the Association of American 
Anatomists in 1897; and, as has been pointed 
out by me on several occasions, the prefix 
lends itself readily to useful and euphonious 
compounds, metacele, metaplexus, metatela 
and metapore (“Foramen of Magendie”). 
These considerations render me hopeful that 
when there comes a subsidence of “ Hisolatry ” 
and of the prevailing obsession of most Amer- 
ican anatomists for ideas and words “ made in 
Germany,” the last encephalic segment will be 
known as metencephalon and the last but one 
as epencephalon. 
