SCIENCE. 



In the Preface to his " Anatomie du Chat" (A, pp. 

 xiv — xvii), Straus-Durckheim devotes several pages to a 

 discussion of anatomical nomenclature, and the body of 

 the work contains many original names. Protessor H. S. 

 Williams calls attention (A, Preface), to the " crying 

 need of a standard and uniform nomenclature of compar- 

 ative anatomy." 



In the preface to their recent account of the morpho- 

 logy of the skull (A), Parker and Bettany say : " It has 

 been attempted to narrate the facts by means of a con- 

 sistent terminology, amplifying what Prof. Huxley has so 

 admirably developed." Several of Huxley's papers (as 

 70), contain new terms, most of which have been gen- 

 erally accepted, and in a greater or less degree the same 

 is true of the elder Agassiz (A), Gegenbaur (59), 

 Haeckel (A), Marsh (1), and others. 



That my own consideration of the subject is not wholly 

 of recent date may be seen from the papers numbered 10 

 and 2. 



SCOPE AND METHODS OF THIS REVISION. 



Most of the toponomical terms here discussed have a 

 general application. But a revision of the organonomy 

 of the entire body would extend this article beyond desir- 

 able limits. . 



As stated by Pye-Smith (1, 162), "the nomenclature of 

 the brain stands more in need of revision than that of any 

 other part," and on the present occasion I will simply 

 endeavor to remove, in some degree, the deficiency im- 

 plied in the following words ol the French editors of 

 " Huguenin " (A, Preface): 



" That which is demanded of anatomy is an exact 

 nomenclature and determination of the parts of the 

 brain in their relative positions and contiguity, and if pos- 

 sible in their continuity." 



Doubtless, for. the entire comprehension of its func- 

 tions, and even for the final determination of some of its 

 homologies, the vertebrate brain should be fully under- 

 stood in respect to the disposition of its cellular and 

 fibrous elements, — that which the writers just mentioned 

 term its continuity. But whoever is at all familiar with 

 the literature of encephalic histology, or who has under- 

 taken for himself the exhaustive study of even a very 

 limited part of the brain will, if of sincere mind, admit 

 the present impossibility of fairly discussing the micro- 

 scopical terminology of the organ within the limits of a 

 single artkle. 



With the gross anatomy of the brain, the case is some- 

 what different. In the first place, some knowledge of it 

 is requisite as a foundation for the histological enquiry, 

 as well as for general work in human or comparative 

 anatomy, physiology, and pathology. Secondly, the 

 parts which are distinguishable by the naked eye are 

 comparatively few, and while the numerous errors which 

 may be found in even standard works sufficiently attest 

 the difficulties of encephalotomy, its methods are com- 

 paratively simple. It is to be hoped, however, that the 

 microscopical terminology and synonymy of the brain 

 may shortly find due treatment. 



A recent paper is entitled by its authors : " A Reformed 

 System of Terminology, etc." Now the word reform is 

 generally associated with questions of ethical improve- 

 ment ; whereas terminological reforms involve no other 

 principle than that of expediency, taking into the account, 

 however, the future as well as the present and the past. 

 Such moral truisms as ,; do right because it is right" 

 have no counterparts in considerations of scientific no- 

 menclature, and he who, affected by the cacoethes re- 

 formation, insists upon reform for the sake of an ideal 

 perfection, is apt to appear as nothing better than a 

 troublesome ana useless pedant. 



In ihe place, then, of what otherwise might be styled 

 the principles of terminological reform, 1 will enumerate 

 briefly the objects of the present revision, the consider- 



ations upon which it is based, and the methods which 

 have been pursued : — 



To facilitate the acquisition and communication of 

 accurate anatomical knowledge, by rendering the voca- 

 bulary equally applicable to all vertebrates, and equally 

 intelligible to all nations. 



That the test of the accuracy and completeness of a 

 description is, not that it may assist, but that it cannot 

 mislead. 



To include in this vocabulary, so far as practicable, 

 only such terms as are brief, simple, significant, of clas- 

 sical origin, and capable of inflection. 



To propose as few changes as possible, and to intro- 

 duce new names only for parts apparently unknown or 

 unnamed before (e. crista fornicis), or in the place 

 of semi-descriptive appellations undesirably long or in- 

 capable of inflection, as e.g., cimbia for tractus trans- 

 versus pedunculi, porta for foramen Monroi. 



To consider brevity as an especially desirable char- 

 acteristic of such names as are most frequently employed. 



When a part is known by a descriptive phrase, to 

 select therefrom some characteristic word as the tech- 

 nical designation ; e, g., iter (a tertio ad ventriculum 

 guar turn). 



When two or more parts are similar, or have similar 

 relations, to distinguish them by joining to some com- 

 mon title already in use, prefixes indicative of their re- 

 lative positions; e.g.,postgeniculatum, prageniculatum. 



To shorten the names of several parts by omitting the 

 word corpus, and using the neuter adjective as a sub- 

 stantive. 



To keep modern usage, and the rules of classical ety- 

 mology constantly in mind, but not to be hindered there- 

 by from the employment or even the formation of terms 

 which are eminently desirable from the practical stand- 

 point. 



To discard terms which indicate size, those which re- 

 fer to the natural attitude of man or animals, most 

 vernacular names, and all names of the reproductive 

 organs which have been applied needlessly to other parts 

 of the body. 



With regard to the point last-named, while it may 

 perhaps be urged in extenuation that the patres anato- 

 mici entertained a notion as to the representation of 

 the entire organism in the brain, some of their words 

 certainly indicate an entire freedom from apprehension 

 that the mysteries of encephalic anatomy ever would 

 be discussed by ordinary mortals, much less by women, 

 'or under circumstances requiring propriety of speech. 



As has been stated, and as will be exemplified in the 

 vocabulary, I have placed great stress upon brevity as a 

 desirable characteristic of anatomical terms. So long as 

 the study of anatomy was nearly confined to members of 

 the medical profession, they being comparatively few in 

 number, and, by ancient tradition at least, not wholly 

 averse to clothing their discourse in a sesquipedalian 

 garb impenetrable to the vulgar eye, it mattered little 

 whether the statement of a given fact or idea required 

 one minute or five. But now, thanks to the popular 

 writings of Agassiz, Dana, Gray, Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, 

 Owen and others, in so far especially as they have 

 aroused a personal interest in the problems of evolution, 

 natural history instruction is given systematically in ail 

 schools and colleges, and the time seems to have come 

 when, in the words of the naturalist first-named, " Scien- 

 tific truth must cease to be the property of the few ; it 

 must be woven into the common life of the world." It 

 is probable, indeed, that those who employ anatomical 

 language to a greater or less extent at the present day 

 are at least one hundred times as numerous as when Dr. 

 Barclay's praiseworthy effort at reform was received with 

 indifference or opposition. 



It may be asked : In the face of this rapid populariza- 

 tion of anatomical knowledge is it worth while to intro- 

 duce, or even to retain, any purely technical terms ? 



