4A8 
2) „Excepting some compounds of encephalon which are used in 
different senses, nearly all the mononyms upon your list of encephalic 
terms — about twenty-five in number — had already been selected and 
adopted by me. Was not this coincidence worth mention as indicating 
the possibility of some degree of harmonious cooperation between us?“ 
3) “You say; “WILDER und seine Collegen verlangen lauter Monoyme”. 
This is correct. But you then add: “Sie sagen z. B. praecornu, post- 
cornu und postcava.”’ These words are used by me, but not, so far 
as I know, by other members of the American Committees, although they 
recommend the employment of calcar for hippocampus minor, 
hippocampus for h. major, pons for pons Varolii, insula for 
insula Reilii and pia and dura for pia mater and dura mater 
respectively.“ 
4) ,,Yo refer to the principle of mononymy. But you do not seem 
to have gathered, even from my “Paronymy versus heteronymy as 
neuronymic principles” (Presidential address at the 11th annual meeting of 
the Amer. Neurological Assoc, 1885, Journ. of nerv. and mental Disease, 
XII, p. 21), that mononyms are preferred by us to polyonyms not so 
much because they are usually shorter, but because, whatever their length, 
they are capable of two desirable modifications, viz., (a) inflection as 
adjectives (e. g. thalamicus, callosalis, duralis ete.) and (b) ad- 
option by paronymy into other languages (e. g. hippocampus, hippocampe, 
hippocamp, Hippokamp, hippocampo). Am I to infer that this feature of 
the matter was unknown to you, or regarded as slight in importance >“ 
5) „You say “Sprachwidrige Wortzusammensetzungen enthält aber 
Witper’s Liste sehr viele.” It would not be without probability or pre- 
cedent that errors should occur among so large a number of terms, but 
I must insist upon the specification of my ungrammatical verbal combin- 
ations. In particular I ask fuller grounds of objection to medi- 
pedunculus.“ 
6) „You mention certain papers by me as “eine Reihe von kleineren 
Aufsätzen und Broschüren”. Their fewness, (four) their brevity and their 
recent dates 1890—92 would indicate that I had done little on the sub- 
ject and that my views are correspondingly unimportant. Yet my first 
paper on encephalic Nomenclature was in 1880 and I have published 
something almost annually since upon it. The article in the “Reference 
Handbook of the medical Science”, VIII, 1889, p. 515—533, was, so far 
as I know, the fullest discussion of late years; a copy was sent fo Dr. 
Krause, Secretary of your Committee, about May 1891 and his letter of 
April 12, 1892 informed me that it had been “set in circulation among 
the Committee”. It is also mentioned in most of the papers or documents 
printed since 1889. In 1892, the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science adopted unanimously the Report of the Committee (of 
which I am not a member) on biological Nomenclature, including a 
characterization of the Handbook article “as representing an epitome of 
the whole subject, with suggestions for future progress’. A copy of that 
Report was sent to you. Is your absolute silence as to the article to be 
interpreted as indicating that you not only never saw it, but never heard 
of it, or had no idea of its scope?“ 
Frommannsche Buchdruckerei (Hermann Pohle) in Jena, 
