976 ^v. K. grp:cory — report of committee on nomenclature 



terms which will give rise to no confusion and the gradual elimination 

 of synon}aTis as homologies become unquestionably established. 



While priority in naming an element should have considerable weight 

 in the choice of the term finally agreed on, it is not advisable that it 

 should be at all strictly adhered to, as in many cases it would result in 

 needless confusion. 



The suggestion made by Moodie that the B. N. A. terminology be 

 adopted is, in my opinion, an unwise one. The bones of the human skull 

 are in many cases complex, and to use the name which has been applied 

 to a complex for a part of the complex in a lower form will give rise to 

 hopeless confusion. For example, ^^maxilla" is the approved B. N. A. 

 term for a bone which in the human subject bears incisors, canines, pre- 

 molars, and molars. It is doubtless homologous with the premaxilla and 

 maxilla of the lower forms, but not strictly homologous with either one, 

 and if Hoodie's suggestion were agreed to it would at once be necessary 

 to rename the maxilla in -the lower forms the "postmaxilla." 0., if the 

 name maxilla is to be retained for only one part of the complex in the 

 lower forms, why should not the name os temporale be applied to the 

 squamosal in lower forms, or os sphenoidale to the basisphenoid, or os 

 occipitale to the basioccipital ? 



The human anatomists have in the last two hundred years done singu- 

 larly little toward the determination of the homologies of the cranial ele- 

 ments. Almost all the work has been done by the comparative anatomists 

 and paleontologists. Some early human anatomist discovered the little 

 bone in the ear called the incus, but it was the comparative anatomist that 

 showed that it was homologous with the large "quadrate" bone which sup- 

 ports the jaw in most lower forms. And if the preservation of a name is 

 to be in any way a complement to careful work, the comparative anatomist 

 has at least a claim. In any case, I feel confident that the name "incus" 

 will never be applied to the birds' quadrate. It would be much wiser if 

 one term only is to be used to call the human incus the quadrate. 



With regard to the majority of names approved by the majority of the 

 committee I am in agreement. There are one or two concerning which I 

 should like to make a note. 



D ermo-supraoccipitd . — This term of Miall's is approved by Williston, 

 Case, Gregory, Moodie. Watson and I have used a term proposed by me 

 in 190-3 — "postparietal." As, however, there is now no doubt that the 

 element is the homologue of the mammalian "interparietal," there is no 

 need for a new term at all. The interparietal has long been known in 

 mammals and we can trace every step of it back to the Stegocephalian. 

 Sometimes it is paired ; sometimes single. 



