308 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIX No. 1265 



" The Committee, after consideration of the 

 matter, unanimously reports that it sees no 

 reason for departing from the use of the old 

 nomenclature as the recognized medium of 

 description for employment in anatomical 

 textbooks and departments, or by medical men 

 in general; on the other hand, it thinks that 

 there are very good reasons to be urged against 

 the adoption of any other nomenclature for 

 this purpose."^ 



In accordance with this vote, inquiries are 

 being made as to the attitude of various in- 

 stitutions toward the "old terminology" and 

 the " new or Basle terminology," for it is rec- 

 ognized that " an educational problem of far 

 reaching importance is at stake, on which the 

 United States of America and the British 

 Dominions have the right to be heard and 

 their opinions considered." Meanwhile the 

 arguments against the Basle terminology, 

 which without any edict to enforce it, but 

 through its inherent excellence, has been so 

 generally adopted, are set forth by Professor 

 Keith in the British Medical Journal of July, 

 191Y. " Cursed be he that removeth his neigh- 

 bour's landmarks " is his text, preceding the 

 examination of what he terms " a wild ass 

 movement " whereby a scheme of names is 

 " being forced on English-speaking medical 

 men." From all of which it would appear, 

 to one who finds merit in the Basle nomen- 

 clature, that there is danger that great harm 

 may be done through rulings of organizations, 

 moved at present by justifiable anti-German 

 feeling rather than by impartial consider- 

 ations of science. Is this a favorable time to 

 act in such a matter? 



The Basle nomenclature, although prepared 

 by a distinguished committee of Grerman anat- 

 omists, is not German, but Latin, and there is 

 no doubt that an international terminology 

 for anatomy ought to be in Latin. It aims 

 to be in correct Latin without abbreviations, 

 and is an impressively scholarly achievement, 

 placing anatomical terms on a far more digni- 

 fied basis than those current, for example, in 



1 This enltire paragraiph is quoted from the Brit- 

 ish Med. Journ., March 30, 1918, p. 378. 



surgery. Whatever may be said of an oc- 

 casional error in judgment — and there is ex- 

 traordinary diflference of opinion in the selec- 

 tion of these errors — the principles of the 

 system are sound, and instead of being aban- 

 doned, should be extended to other branches. 

 How difficult this task would prove is shown 

 by the failure of international committees to 

 make any progress with an embryological 

 terminology or with one for comparative anat- 

 omy. These failures show the skill with which 

 the Basle nomenclature was produced. The 

 real question is, shall it be abandoned because 

 of its German origin? 



German in origin it certainly is, although 

 the committee appointed certain collaborators 

 from other countries and expressed its appre- 

 ciation of the cooperation of Professors Thane, 

 Romiti and Leboucq. ITo American member 

 was appointed, partly because of distance and 

 partly because Americans seemed committed 

 to a " telegraphic system " whereby, for ex- 

 ample, the vena cava posterior was designated 

 the postcava. There is no defense for this 

 system, and the committee acted wisely. It 

 evidently appreciated Huxley's maxim that in 

 the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom — 

 in a few of them. So ten able anatomists 

 worked by themselves for six years to simplify 

 and improve nomenclatitte along the soimd 

 principles which they had adopted. We can 

 not call this "the caprice of a handful ot 

 enthusiasts."^ 



The Basle nomenclature is surely not be- 

 yond criticism, but criticism should be con- 

 cerned first of all with the principles in- 

 volved. If those are sound and the system 

 can be accepted, as it has been generally, 

 then criticism as to the application of those 

 principles in special cases may be construc- 

 tive. What seems unprofitable is for every 

 one to select here and there a term objection- 

 able to himself and to set that fojth in con- 

 demnation of the whole, as is usually done. 

 Is it better to call the chief foramen of the 

 mandible the mandibular foramen, or the 



2 Editorial, British Med. Journal, July, 1917, pp. 

 121-122. 



