1881.] ^*^1 [Wilder. 



latent m my own mind for years, but I have lacked the courage to bring 

 them before my colleagues. Now that he has broken ground, those who 

 prefer a I'ational nomenclature to one which ]ike the presetit reigning one, 

 is based upon erroneous principles, or rather on no principles at all, 

 will be rejoiced at the precedent thus set for innovations. As Prof. 

 Wilder has invited criticism, I take the opportunity of offering the follow- 

 ing remarks upon the leading points of his papers, in so far as they refer 

 to the brain alone. 



"1. The principles announced are such as zootomists and anatomists 

 generally will agree witli, to the fullest extent. «• * * I have no hesi- 

 tation in saying that the labor of the anatomical student will be diminished 

 fully one -half when this nomenclature shall have been definitely adopted. 



* * * In Germany the older system has gone out of use almost 

 entirely, and not the least charm about the works of Henle, Schwalbe, 

 Forel and Gudden, is the fact that these authors have more or less done 

 away with the ambiguous terms once rampant. 



"3. In proceeding to comment on some of the terms proposed by Prof. 

 Wilder, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do so merely tenta- 

 tively and to promote discussion ; in so doing I feel certain that I am 

 carrying out that writer's Avish. It is but just to state that the majority of 

 the terms cannot be discussed — they are perfection and simplicity com- 

 bined." 



I think Dr. Spitzka does himself scant justice in ascribing his non-pre- 

 sentation of the subject to "a lack of courage." But I can well under- 

 stand that the demands of an active practice have forced him to defer from 

 time to time the somewhat onerous task of putting his material into shape 

 for publication.* 



In the following discussion of the macroscopic vocabulary of the brain, 

 I have transcribed freely from the article above named, introducing such 

 modifications as have since appeared to me desirable. 



The terms employed by anatomists form two divisions : those which in- 

 dicate the position or direction of organs, and those by which the organs 

 themselves are designated. Since, also, writers have usually treated of 

 them separately, it will be convenient here to consider anatomical topono- 

 my and organonomy under distinct headings. 



Terms of Position and Direction — Toponojiy. 



Dr. Barclay's volume had especial reference to this division of the sub- 

 ject, and its key-note is struck in the following paragraph (A, 5) : 



"The vague ambiguity of such terms as superior, inferior, anterior, pos- 

 terior, &c., must have been felt and acknowledged by every person che 

 least versant with anatomical description. ' ' 



Dunglison admits (A, 61) that "Great confusion has prevailed with 

 anatomists in the use of the terms before, behind, &c." Dr. Spitzka has 

 forcibly stated (/, 75, note 1) the objections to the use of anterior, &c., and 

 their unsuitability is tacitly conceded in the employment of other terms by 



*Since this paper was presented, Dr. Spitzka lias publislied an able contribu- 

 tion {10) to our knowledge of tlie metencephaloa, iu whicli the toponomical 

 terms herein suggested are employed. 



PROC. AJJCER. PHILOS. SOC. XIX. 109. 3o. PRINTED DEC. 6, 1881. 



