stitution of the region in question, Spitzka overlooks what appear to me to be weighty arguments in favor of the prevalent view, viz.: (1) The existence, in the embryo, of a constriction of the "primary hind-brain" by which the "secondary hind-brain" is distinguishable from the "after-brain." (2) The demarcation, at least in man, of the cephalad (epencephalic) portion of the "fourth ventricle," from the caudad (metencephalic) portion, by the transverse fasciculi called stric acusticæ. (3) The presence, in several Teleosts and Elasmobranchiates, of dorso-lateral, metencephalic masses, united by a thinner (commissural?) portion, and connected with the cerebellum only through a thin or membranous lamina comparable with the valvula between the cerebellum and the optic lobes. In the Torpedo (as seen in the preparation and photograph exhibited) each of these metencephalic masses exceeds in size the dorsal portions of all of the other segments together. (4) In addition to these direct arguments, is the indirect one that most of the objections to the recognition of a cerebellar segment apply with equal force to the universally accepted mesen., and with even greater force to the oblongata (and thus to the brain as a whole) in relation to the myel. In other words, the meten. is more sharply defined from the epen. than it and thus the entire brain-is from the myel. (5) Finally, so far from the metepencephalic region embracing but a single segment, even if we hesitate to adopt Clevenger's idea that the cerebellum represents a series of coalesced intervertebral ganglia, we cannot ignore the suggestion of Balfour, based upon the observations of Gegenbaur, Marshall and himself, that several segments, each coördinate with the mesen., are represented in the region between it and the myel. In view of all these considerations, it seems to me, first, that further investigations in embryology and comparative anatomy are needed to place upon a satisfactory basis any segmental formula of the brain; and, second, that the objections advanced by Spitzka should not prevent our entertaining and employing, as a convenient working hypothesis" the interpretation made by Von Baer, and accepted by the majority of later authorities upon the subject. THE EXISTENCE AND DORSAL CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE PORTA (FORAMEN OF MONRO) IN THE ADULT HUMAN BRAIN. By Prof. BURT G. WILDER, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. [ABSTRACT]. IN a paper, "On the foramina of Monro in man and the domestic cat," presented to the Association at the Boston meeting in 1880, it was stated (1) that no recent writer had denied the existence of a communication between each procole (lateral ventricle) and the aula (cephalad part of the "third ventricle"); (2) that I had not yet had the opportunity of examining the parts upon a properly prepared human brain, but the imperfect materials at my disposal indicated that the relations are essentially the same as in the cat. Since then, however (1) I find that, at the "Société de Biologie," May 14 and June 21, 1879, Prof. Mathias Duval declared that "when one finds a communication between the middle and lateral ventricles in an adult human brain, it results from an artificial perforation;" (2) I have been able to determine the existence and dorsal boundary of the porta in all the human brains examined for the purpose, including several adult as well as fetal and young. Some of these, like the specimen exhibited, were prepared by the process of continuous, cœlian alinjection (alcoholic injection) described by me at the last meeting of "The Society of Naturalists of the Eastern United States," and in "The New York Medical Journal," March 1, 1884. The photographs (taken by Prof. S. H. Gage) here shown are believed to be the first ever made of "the foramen of Monro;" in the enlarged one the orifice is seen to be bounded caudad by the thalamus, cephalad by the fornicolumn, ventrad by the continuity of the two, and dorsad by the endyma reflected from the parts named upon the intruded portiplexus. As has been repeatedly stated by me, this demonstration of the dorsal limit of the porta is equally a demonstration of the ventral limit of the rima ("great transverse fissure") with which the porta is usually, but erroneously, made continuous in both figures and descriptions.1 1 Since this paper was presented, I have been enabled to see the same points to even better advantage upon an alinjected hydrencephal (hydrocephalous brain), shown at the meeting of the Am. Neurological Assoc., June 18, 1885. THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE CEREBRUM AND THE CEREBELLUM IN ANTHROPOID APES. By Prof. BURT G. WILDER, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. [ABSTRACT.] So far as I am aware, the discussion as to whether or not the cerebellum of the anthropoid apes is completely covered by the cerebrum has not been based upon the examination of a brain hardened within the cranium, or upon photographs taken before its removal. Through the courtesy of Prof. H. C. Chapman, M. D., one of the directors of the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens, and of Mr. Arthur E. Brown, superintendent of the same, the opportunity was afforded me, last October, of so treating the brain of a young female chimpanzee, supposed by Mr. Brown to be about four years old; the day after its death it weighed 6.7 kilograms. For ten days, at a temperature ranging from four to fifteen degrees centigrade, the entire animal was subjected to the process of continuous arterial alinjection (alcoholic injection) described by me at the last meeting of the Society of Naturalists of the Eastern United States, and in "The New York Medical Journal," for Feb. 23, 1884, and elsewhere. On the second day, less than half of the calvarium was removed, and photographs taken of the dura-covered brain; later, after the removal of the dura, and then of the other part of the calvarium, and of the brain itself, photographs were taken from several points of view. As shown by these photographs and by the left half of the brain, here exhibited, when the specimen is held so that the ventral outline of the orbital lobe is horizontal, the most prominent portion of the cerebellum is overlapped at least 1 mm. by the extremity of the occipital lobes of the cerebrum. Admitting the possibility, suggested by Chapman, of individual; age and specific variations, it is probable that, in some cases, as suggested by Spitzka, the conclusion that the anthropoid cerebellum is not overlapped by the cerebrum has been due to the distortion of the brain during or after its removal. In addition to these considerations, it is evident that the relative positions of the parts will depend upon the way the brain is held. Until evidence is given to the contrary, I assume that the brain should be held as if the animal were looking horizontally. SOME QUESTIONS IN ANATOMICAL NOMENCLATURE. By Prof. BURT G. WILDER, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. [ABSTRACT.] SINCE 1870, in various publications, I have urged upon anatomists certain modifications of the existing terminology of description and designation. Even by those who have not accepted my specific recommendations, it is quite generally admitted that some change is needed. I now ask for the appointment of a "Committee on Anatomical Nomenclature," by Section F, to report at the next meeting upon the general subject, especially with respect to the brain; this committee to invite the coöperation of anatomists of other nationalities, and to confer respecting encephalic nomenclature with the Committee on that subject appointed at its last meeting by the American Neurological Association. The following are examples of the more general and special questions to be considered by such committee: 1. Is it desirable to employ the words toponymy and organonymy, respectively, for the subjects of descriptive and designatory terms? Is it practicable, at present, to harmonize the toponymic terminology of vertebrates with that of any invertebrates? 3. Should we not agree upon a certain normal position of the vertebrate body, including the limbs, and endeavor to use toponymic terms applicable equally to all? 4. Should not postaxial, epaxial, etc., as applied to the limbs, be replaced by terms referring to the regions of the entire body. 5. Shall the median plane or line be designated by those or other phrases, by Barclay's mesium, or my meson (tó péçov, the middle), with the derivatives mesal, mesad and meso? 6. In designating relative position along the longitudinal axis of the body, since oral, cephalic and caudal are commonly employed in an absolute sense, shall we follow the analogy of northward and use the adverbial adjectives orad, cephalad and caudad; or new terms like prorsal and retral; or the familiar words anterior and posterior, with the understanding that they are never to be used in the anthropotomic sense of ventral and dorsal? 7. Should not organonymic terms (terms of designation) be, as far as practicable, brief; capable of inflection; classic in derivation and form; already used in a kindred sense? 8. Since the length of a term may depend upon not only the number of syllables and letters, but also upon the number of separate words, and since, properly, only single words are capable of inflection, is there not a twofold reason why the names of parts, with certain self-evident exceptions (nerves, etc.) should be mononymic? 9. Is there much real analogy between the nomenclature of anatomy and that of zoology and botany? 10. How far should priority be regarded in the selection of existing names? 11. Can priority be claimed for terms which are vernacular or descriptive? 12. In considering all questions of terminological reform, should we not regard less our present and personal convenience, than the interests of the vastly more numerous anatomical workers of the future? PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LYMPHATICS OF THE COMMON BULL HEAD, AMIURUS CATUS (L.), GILL. By F. L. KILBORNE, THE lymphatic system of fishes seems to have received comparatively little attention from working anatomists. The literature upon the subject, especially in English, is very meagre, and even in French and German there is little more. Hewson, as early as 1768-9, first described the lymphatics of amphibious animals and fishes. Besides his paper I have been able to find in English but a single short note by T. R. Jones upon the lymph heart of In later papers ("Encephalic Nomenclature," N. Y. Med. Jour., April 21, 28, 1885, and "Paronymy versus Heteronymy as Neuronymic Principles", the presidential address before the American Neurological Association, 1885, “Jour. of Nervous and Mental Disease," July, 1885), I have suggested that, in English works, so far as possible, the names be given an English aspect by paronymisation. For example, commissura becomes commissure; pedunculus, peduncle; mesocælia, mesocæle; myelum, myel; and encephalum, encephal. With many names no change is needed, as with porta, aula, fornix, callosum, etc. Heteronyms or vernacular translations are regarded as objectionable. The same principle is applicable to other languages. |