SCIENCE. 



165 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[T/ie Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. No notice is taken of anonymous communi- 

 cations^ 



To the Editor of " SCIENCE :" 



It is with mingled pleasure and profit that I have read 

 the very suggestive paper on cerebral nomenclature con- 

 tributed to your latest issues by Professor Wilder 1 . Some 

 of the suggestions which he has made have been latent 

 in 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 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. As 

 Professor Wilder has invited criticism, I take the oppor- 

 tunity of offering the following 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 with, to the fullest 

 extent. He who has himself been compelled to labor 

 under the curse of the old system, the "beneath," 

 " below," " under," "in front of," " inside," " external," 

 " between," etc., of anatomy, as taught at our graduating 

 mills, will look upon the simple "ventral" "dorsal," 

 " lateral," " mesal," "cephalic," (or " nasal " or " prox- 

 imal " ) and " caudal " (" distal ") as so many boons. I 

 have no hesitation in saying that the labor of the anatomi- 

 cal student will be diminished fully one-half when this 

 nomenclature shall have been definitely adopted. I sup- 

 pose, however, that the present generation of teachers— 

 I am speaking of our medical schools, not of our univer- 

 sities — will have to become extinct before even the 

 attempt can be made. 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. 



2. At present two terms are used convertibly ; these are 

 crus and pedunculus. The chief parts to which these 

 terms are given are the crus cerebri (pedunculus cerebri) 

 and the peduncuh cerebelli {crura cerebelli). If anatom- 

 ists would agree to use the term crus only for the cere- 

 bral tract, and pedunculus for the cerebellar, it would 

 save us the necessity of adding another word. Crus 

 would mean what crus ox pedunculus cerebri now desig- 

 nates, pedunculus a cerebellar tract. The modifications 

 suggested by Professor Wdder of prcepedunculus, etc., 

 are excellent. The word pedunculus has been applied to 

 a number of other structures, but, I think, inappropri- 

 ately ; thus, pedunculus conarii, pedunculus hypophyseos 

 pedunculus flocculi, pedunculus nuclei lenficularis, 

 pedunculus substantia' nigrce, from all of which it should 

 be removed, as there are other terms in use for these 

 structures, or they are non-descriptive, as the latter two 

 given. 



3. 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 tentatively and to pro- 

 mote 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. 



Amygdala (Cerebelli), W. — Since there is a nucleus 

 amygdalec in the temporal lobe of the cerebrum of man, 

 simians and carnivores, which should be called amygdala 

 briefly, just as the nucleus lenticularis and 11. caudatus 

 are termed lenticularis and caudatus and as the synonym 

 tonsilla cerebelli' 1 is at our disposal for the similarly named 

 lobule of the cerebellum, I suggest replacing this term as 

 applied to the cerebellum by tonsilla. 



Area Intercruralis, W. — I have this term in 

 a manuscript of mine, and am glad to find such a coinci- 



dence in baptism, according the priority, of course, to the 

 first publication. I bound this area cephalad by the cau- 

 dal border of the chiasm, caudad by the cephalic border 

 of the Pons, laterad by the crura, and distinguish the 

 deeper part as a fossa intercruralis (substantia perforata 

 post.) The gray mass here located is the ventral face of 

 Gudden's 3 ; 4 interpeduncular ganglion, which I propose, 

 in order to secure nomenclatural uniformity, to term 

 (Ganglion) intercrurale. 



Area Postpontilis, W. — The objection can be 

 made that this area is not homologous in different ani- 

 mals. A large part of the true Pons in man includes the 

 portion homologous with a part of the Area postpontilis 

 of the cat. The roots of the abducens nerve (6th 

 pair) seem to me to constitute a more fixed boundary. 



Cauda Striati, W. — I have identified this structure 

 in the cat ; it does not make as fine a sweep as in man, 

 but is distinct at the roof of the inferior horn and loses 

 itself as has long been known 5 in the case of the human 

 brain near the Nucleus amygdala-. Professor Wilder's 

 term is the only admissable one, both as being descrip- 

 tive and on grounds of priority. Cingulum is otherwise 

 appropriated. 



CONARIUM, W. — Would not the retaining of this 

 name deprive us of that convenient antithesis which can 

 be established between epiphysis diencephali and hypo- 

 physis diencephali ? 



Dentatum, W. — Some term should be devised which 

 will at the same time express the fact that this gray mass 

 is a nucleus of the cerebellum and differentiate it from 

 the nucleus fastigii (fastigialis). Dentatum is not 

 appropriate, in my judgment, because in those animals in 

 which it is dentated, there are other dentated nuclei, and 

 also because it is not dentated at all in the rodentia, the 

 carnivora, and ungulata. 



Epencephalon. — Are there any reasons why a sep- 

 erate segment of this name should be made? Some auth- 

 ors limit the term to the cerebellum, which latter is only 

 a dorsal hypertrophy, not an entire segment. The diffi- 

 culties which Prof. Wilder mentions could be obviated 

 by abandoning the term altogether. 



Lemnisci W. — Can be identified in cat on trans- 

 verse section ; they are not distinct on the surface, nor 

 indeed there well marked in any animal. 



LOCUS Niger. — This ganglion is not black in any 

 animal except man ; for this reason I have employed the 

 non-committal designation of Ganglion Soemmeringii. 

 It is interposed between pes and tegmentum like a dia- 

 phragma. 



Monticulus. — Modern authors' 2 , to my knowledge, 

 employ this term only for the highest point of the dorsal 

 cerebellar vermis. 



Nucleus Lenticularis. Might be briefly termed 

 lenticularis. 



Pontibrachium, W.— Is identical with the medi- 

 pedunculus of the same author. I have thought that 

 analogous names might be adopted for the other pedun- 

 culi, thus Restibrachium, etc. 



Striatum, W. — Why not caudatus ? Both lenticu- 

 laris and caudatus are parts of the old corpus striatum. 



Ventripvramis, W. — Since the " posterior pyra- 

 mids " of descriptive anatomy are no longer known as 

 pyramids, and the more generally used term of Clavw has 

 been employed to designate their intumescence, the 

 prefix ventri may not be necessary. 



4. Independently of the question of nomenclature, I 

 should like to ask upon what grounds it is stated that 

 cerebrum consists of the prosencephalon less the striata. 

 The tissue of the cortex cerebri and of the two divisions 

 of the corpus striatum are even in man continuous, and 

 it would be impossible to peel out the lenticular nucleus 

 from the white substance of the hemispheres. Indeed, 

 embryologically the cortical gray and that of the cere- 

 bral ganglia are originally subendymal, and in tracing the 

 development of the brain, as we proceed from reptiles to 



