ANATOMICAL TERMINOLOOY. 11 



§ 33. Some General Considerations upon Anatomical Terminology. — These 

 remarks are based largely upon an article {Wilder, .♦>), whioli althougli published under 

 the name of the senior author, was prepared with the advice and co-operation of the 

 junior. 



That article referred more particularly to the brain, but covered most of the questions 

 connected with the naming and description of other parts. Hence the following expres- 

 sions, the only published comments which have come under our notice, may fairly be 

 considered applicable to the whole subject : — 



" The Nation " for April 21, 1881, contains a brief notice of the article, evidently by 

 an experienced teacher of Anatomy, containing the admission that " there is certainly 

 ample room for a Reform of Anatomical Nomenclature." 



The following are extracts from, a Letter (Bpitzka, 7) to the editor of " Science," pub- 

 lished in that journaJ for April 9,, 1881, by Dr. E. C. Spitzka, the author of many papers 

 upon the Anatomy of the Brain : — 



" It is with mingled pleasure and profit that I have read the very suggestive paper on 

 cerebral nomenclature contributed to your latest issues by Professor Wilder. Some of 

 the suggestions which he has made have been latent in my own mind for years, but 1 have 

 lacked the courage to bring them before my colleagues. Now that he has broken ground, 

 those who 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 compelled to labor 

 under the curse of the old system, t\ie;hejheath, below, under, in front of, inside, external, 

 between, etc., will look upon the simple mntrai, dorsal, lateral, meeal, cephalic, proaimal, 

 caudal, distal, etc., as so many boons. I have no hesitation in saying that the labor of 

 the anatomical student will be diminished fully one-half when this nomenclature shall 

 have been definitely adopted. * * » 



In proceeding to comment on some of the terms proposed by Professor Wilder, I 

 wish it to be distinctly understood that I do so merely tentanvely and to promote 

 discussion ; in so doing I feel certain that I am carrying out that writer's wish. It is 

 but just to state that the majority of the terms cannot be discussed ; they are perfection 

 and simplicity combined." 



With the permission of the writer, " Science " for May 38, 1881, printed the following 

 Letter (Holmes, 1), from one who has been the Professor of Anatomy in the Harvard 

 Medical School for more than the third of century : — 



" Boston, May 3, 1881. 



"Dear Dk. Wilder: — I have read carefully your paper on Nomenclature. I 

 entirely approve of it as an attempt, an attempt which I hope will be partially successful, 

 for no such sweeping change is, I think, ever adopted as a whole. But I am struck with 

 the reasonableness of the system of changes you propose, and the fitness of many of the 

 special terms you have suggested. 



" The last thing an old teacher wants is, as you know full well, a new set of terms for 

 a familiar set of objects. It is hard instructing ancient canine individuals in new devices. 

 It is hard teaching old professors new tricks. So my approbation of your attempt is a sic 

 vos non vobis case so far as I am concerned. * * * 



" What you have to do is to keep agitating the subject, to go on training your 

 students to the new terms — some of which you or others will doubtless see reasons for 

 changing — to improve as far as possible, fill up blanks, perhaps get up a small manual in 

 which the new terms shall be practically applied, and have faith that sooner or later the 

 best part of your innovations will find their way into scientific use. The plan is an ex- 



