The brain of the cat (Felis domestica). 1. Preliminary account of the gross anatomy / by Burt G. Wilder.

  • Burt Green Wilder
Date:
[1881]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The brain of the cat (Felis domestica). 1. Preliminary account of the gross anatomy / by Burt G. Wilder. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    9/48 (page 531)
    1881.] 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 wlio prefer a rational nomenclature to oue which like t\\Q present reigning one, is based upon erroneous principles, or leather on no principles at all, will be rejoiced at the precedent tlms set for innovations. As Prof. Wilder has invited criticism, I take the opportunity of offering the follow- ing 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. * * * I have no hesi- tation in saying that the labor of the anatomical student will be diminished fully one-half when this nomenclature shall have been definitely adopted. * * * 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. “ 3. In proceeding to comment on some of the terms proposed by Prof. Wilder, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do so merely tenta- tively and to promote 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 com- bined.” I think Dr. Spitzka does himself scant justice in ascribing his non-pre- sentation of the subject to ‘‘a lack of courage.” But I can well under- stand that the demands of an active practice have forced him to defer from time to time the somewhat onerous task of putting his material into shape for publication.* In the following discussion of the macroscopic vocabulaiy of the brain, I have transcribed freely from the article above named, introducing such modifications as have since appeared to me desirable. The terms employed by anatomists form two divisions : those which in- dicate the position or direction of organs, and those by which the organs themselves are designated. Since, also, writers have usually treated of them separately, it will be convenient here to consider anatomical topono- my and organonomy under distinct headings. Terms op Position and Direction—Toponomy. Dr. Barclay’s volume had especial reference to this division of the sub- ject, and its key-note is struck in the following paragraph (A, 5) : ‘‘The vague ambiguity of such terms as superior, inferior, anterior, pos- terior, &c., must have been felt and acknowledged by every person the least versant with anatomical description.” Dunglison admits (A, 61) that ‘‘Great confusion has prevailed with anatomists in the use of the terms before, behind, &c.” Dr. Spitzka has forcibly stated (/, 75, note 1) the objections to the use of anterior, &c., and their unsuitability is tacitly conceded in the emplo3unent of other terms by *Since this paper was presented. Dr. .Spitzka has puhllshed an able contribu- tion {10) to our knowledge of the mctencephalon. In which tlic toponomical terms herein suggested are employed. I’ROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XIX. 109. 3o. PRINTED DEC. 6, 1881.