The Terms of li ioplastology . — Hyatt. -'••7 
comparatively new recruit in the army of investigation, it 
aspires to show that the phenomena of individual life are 
parallel with those of its own phylum and that both follow 
the same law of morphogenesis, that not only can one indi- 
cate the past history of groups from the study of the young, 
and obviously the present or existing progression or retro- 
gression of the type by means of the adult characters of any 
one organism, but that it is also possible to prophesy what is 
to happen in the future history of the type from the study of 
the corresponding paraplastic phenomena in the develop- 
ment of the individual. 
Whether these claims are well founded or not, the nomen- 
clature to be employed is a matter of importance and should 
be accurate, appropriate, and convenient for those who are in- 
terested in this work, and this abstract has 1 been written in 
large part as a contribution towards this object. 
Ontoqeny. 
Messrs. Buckman and Bather have proposed to substitute a 
set of improved terms for those previously used by myself, and 
both are given in the following table: 
Ontogenic Table of Terms (I). 
Hyatt, 1888. Buckman and Bather, 1892. 
1. Embryologic 1. Embryonic 1. Embryonic 
2. Naepionic 2. Brephic 2. Infantile or Larval 
3. Nealogic £ Neanic 3. Adolescent 
•4. Ephebolic i. Ephebic *. Adult or Mature 
5. Geratologic 5. Gerontic 5. Senile 
a. OUnologic a. Catabatic a. Declining 
b. Nostologic b. Hypostrophic b. Atavic 
It would be a waste of time, even if T felt so disposed, to 
attempt to defend the nomenclature of the first column in this 
table. The use of terminations derived from \oyOS in this 
way is not defensible and wasdue to the careless habits of the 
early history of terminology, still extant in the use of "mor- 
phological" instead of "morphic" and in the obligatory use of 
"physiological" and "geological," etc. 
The nomenclature of lssis is inadequate not only on account 
of etymological faults, which do not. however, trouble me as 
much as they do those who regard linguistic purity with 
higher respect, but because the system is insufficient and un- 
symniet rical. 
