the mind more at leifure for the comparifon of ideas. A fylle-' matic language actually faves, in every procefs of reafoning, a variety of fteps. Thefe fteps were gone through by the inventor of the general method, for all the fubordinate cafes; and the inquir. er, who wishes to carry the detail farther than his predeceñors have done, needs only carry on the application. What, in fact, was the grand change effected upon geometry, by Des Cartes, but the introduction of a new and general nomenclature into that fcience? In the introduction to the work now before us, Dr Barclay points out, at fome length, the various evils arifing from the ambiguity of the terms at prefent ufed in anatomical defcription; and offers fome very judicious remarks upon the plans of improvement propofed by other authors. We extract the following obfervations, on the fcheme of Dumas, to name the nerves from their origin and termination, as a very favourable fpecimen of our author's acutenefs, and talent for illuftration. He pronofes to diftinguish the trunk (of the olfactory nerve), by the term firiato-narinal; the divifion which terminates at the ethmoi dal bone, by the term firiato-nurinal-ethmoidien; and the part which is ramified on the petuitary membrane, by the term firiato-narinalpituitaire. This tirefome repetition of the name of the trunk, in the names of all the divifions and branches, would not only be exceedingly cumbrous, but unneceffary. In the fyftem of Linnæus, man belongs to the genus homo, to the order of primates, and the clafs of mammalia: but did it ever enter the mind of that naturalift to fuppofe that the genus would be better expreffed by the term mammale primas hotno, than by fimple bomo taken by itfelf? A name is one thing, claffification another, and defeription a third. From not making this neceffary diftinction, Dumas, in trying to impofe names, is conftantly labouring at a fort of claffification and defeription; fo that his defcriptions are often bad names, and his names more frequently worfe deferiptions. " P. 31. 32. Before entering upon the immediate fubject of the Effay, Dr Barclay difcuffes the general topic of Language, its kinds and changes, at a length perhaps fomewhat unneceflary. The object of thefe preliminary chapters is to illuftrate the intimate connexion between fpoken and written language, and to enumerate the va rious circumftances which render both fubject to perpetual fluc tuations. The third chapter is employed in fhewing, that the language of fcience should be diftinct from that of the people; and the fourth contains our author's general ideas upon the changes of anatomical nomenclature. The The three last chapters are occupied with a detail of the changes which he recommends. The following is a general outline of his plan. In defcribing the vertebral column, anatomifts call the bone nearest to the head the atlas, and the mafs of vertebræ at the oppofite extremity, the facrum. In fyftematic connexion, thefe occupy correfponding regions, in all animals in which they are found. Dr Barclay therefore propofes the words atlantal and faeral, instead of fuperior and inferior. Instead of the words anterior and pofterior, which are ufed to exprefs the breaft and the back in all animals, the terms fternal and dorsal are suggested. The words dermal and central, denoting what points to the fkin, and what to the centre, or peripheral and central, when speaking of an organ, are fubftituted for external and internal, when they fignify what is fuperficial and deep. When they are employed to exprefs the fide or middle of a furface, fuppofe a plane to pass along the middle of the neck, the mediaftinum and linea alba, and to divide the neck and trunk into fimilar halves, from the fternum to the dorfum, and let this plane be denominated mefion; the words lateral and mefial will, in fuch a cafe, convey the meaning of external and internal. Right and left might ftill denote the lateral parts of the trunk, but dextral and finiftral are thought preferable, for the reafons affigned in the general obfervations on language. Much ambiguity has arifen, from ufing the words right and left, anterior and pofterior, in defcribing the different parts of the heart. To avoid thefe inaccuracies, Dr Barclay propofes to divide the vafcular fyftem into two parts; to call one fyftemic, the other pulmanie; expreffing by the former term, all thofe veffels, whether arteries or veins, which convey the blood from the lungs to the different parts of the body; and by the latter, thofe veffels which convey the blood from the fyftem at large to the lungs. Thus the pulmonary veins, the left finus, auricle and ventricle of the heart, with the aorta and all its branches, will be called fyftemic; while the bronchial veins, the veins of the head, heart, trunk, and extremities, the right finus, auricle and ventricle, circling the pulmonary artery and its branches, will be diftinguished by the epithet pulmonic. Befides removing ambiguity, fays our author, another advantage that naturally arifes from this change in the nomenclature is, that inftead of being obliged to enumerate the veffels in which the purple or the vermilion blood is contained, we may fay at once that the purple is contained in all the pulmonic veffels, and the vermilion in all the fyftemic, whether veins or arteries. The The extremities are to be diftinguished by epithets borrowed from the regions of the trunk with which they are connected; the fuperior called atlantal, and the inferior, facral. It is propofed to diftinguifh the ends of thefe bones by the terms proximal and diftal, according as they are near to, or at a diftance from, the trunk. The atlantal extremities again are subdivided into radial and ulnar, to ugnify the two lateral parts, and into anconal and thenal, to exprefs the other two fides. Dr Barclay next proceeds to fhow, how a fimilar divifion and arrangement may be applied to the facral extremities. Thefe new terms, in general, are entitled to the praife of great clearness and fimplicity, though we are inclined to doubt the poffibility of bringing them into general ufe. If there be any of this new nomenclature, confidered as a theory, in which we fhould be inclined to diffent from the author, it is that which relates to the vafcular fyftem. The divifion of the circulation into two parts is judicious: and Bichat (tom. 2. Anatomie Generale) we find has made a divifion, in all its effential parts, precisely the fame; and has alleged fimilar reafons for making fuch an alteration. This coincidence may be confidered as fortunate, while it thews the propriety of making fome change. The few objections that we have to make, are to the terms fyftemic and pulmonic, which do not appear fo happily chofen, as the others which Dr Barclay has fuggefted. Thefe terms, when applied to the heart alone, exprefs diftinctly the two different parts, the auricles and ventricles, in man, and the mammalia; but when they are extended to the other parts of the fyftem, and to the lower animals, ambiguity feems likely to arife. In the first place, it may be remarked, that the centre of circulation is made to reft in the lungs, and not in the heart, as hitherto fuppofed. This is implied, by the new words, which exprefs the carrying the blood from the lungs to the fyftem, and returning it to the lungs from the fyftem at large. Now, the circulation of the blood differs according to the different structure of the heart, and the organs of refpiration, in different animals. In the amphibia, and in fifhes, the heart has only one ventricle and one auricle; and in infects, and fome of the vermes, only a ventricle, and no auricle. Indeed, our author remarks, that the veffels of their lungs (the amphibia), in fome meafure correfpond in function to our bronchials; and that their blood, undergoing a change from the action of the air, is entirely confined to fyftemic veins.' (p. 124.) Hence it appears, that there is no foundation for this diftinction into two fets of veffels, named with reference to their lungs, which in these animals have a small share in the circulation, and in infects and the vermes ftill lefs, lefs, where the blood undergoes fome falutary changes from the fpiracula, which are extended over all parts of their bodies. It may be faid, that these terms are not intended for the amphibia, or cold-blooded animals, but are calculated to exprefs the difference between them and animals with warm blood. But is not this in direct oppofition to the plan and intention of the author, who propofes to adopt terms which will admit of a general appli. cation to all parts of the animal kingdom? Some difficulty ftrikes us, when we apply thefe new terms to the fœtus in utero. In this cafe, the right auricle and ventricle must be called both pulmonic and fyftemic; because the auricle fends fome of its blood through the foramen ovale, and the ventricle through the ductus arteriofus, to the fyftem at large. To any one already acquainted with the difference between the circulation in the foetus and the adult, this may appear intelligible; but it does not seem calculated to fimplify the defcription of this intricate part of anatomy, or to render it more eafily comprehended by young ftudents. The veffels which convey blood from the lungs to the fyftem at large, form but an inconfiderable part of the circulation in the foetus, and therefore deferve not the title of systemic, according to the definition which is given. The umbilical vein would rather lay claim to this epithet, as it carries blood of a red colour, after it has undergone fome neceffary changes in the placenta. The vena porta, too, will be both a systemic and pulmonic veffel; because it ferves indirectly to convey the blood from the lungs to the liver, for a purpofe very important to the fyftem at large, the fecretion of the bile; while, at the fame time, it conveys a confiderable portion of blood from the abdominal vifcera to the lungs. It may be objected, that the hepatic artery is the fyftemic veffel of the liver; but the relative offices of this artery, and the vena porta, are not yet fo well understood, as to lead us to fuch a distinction. Where the etymology of a word will affift in explaining the fituation or function of any part, it ought furely to be preferred. For although the technical meaning may be determined by a definition, yet it is difficult to diveft ourselves of the idea which the etymology conveys. Thus, to talk of the pulmonic veffels of the leg and arm, muft appear ftrange to any one who had ever heard of the veffels of the heart and lungs which have received that name. No reafon is alleged for making the particular term pulmonic a general one, or for rendering a word particular, whose ftrict meaning is general. All the veffels of the body might be called fyftemic, as forming a part of the whole fyftem; but few of them can properly be termed pulmonic, because a small number only belong to the lungs. Perhaps it would have been better to have fuggefted two new terms, which had never been in use, if any new terms terms are neceffary, for expreffing the arterial and venous circulation. But it has been already obferved, that no alterations in names fhould be made, unless abfolutely required; fince nothing impedes the diffufion of knowledge more, than the multiplicity of technical terms, and variety of nomenclature. Therefore, we humbly conceive, as the terms fyftemic and pulmonic do not admit of general application to all the lower animals; as they appear to involve fome ambiguity in their etymological fenfe; and as they do not promife any great advantages from their ufe, they ought not to be adopted, to the exclufion of thofe wellknown terms, the arteries and veins. After having given this general sketch of Dr Barclay's Effay, we fhall not detain our readers by following him through all his other curious and interefting remarks, on feveral mifcellancous fubjects. He fuggefts new terms for defcribing the head and face in different animals, which appear extremely correct and fatisfactory. By flight changes in the termination of the new words, they are made to exprefs, clearly and accurately, all the neceffary modifications of which their general meaning is fufceptible. When they end in al or an, they denote fimply pofition or afpect: by changing their termination into en, they exprefs a different fort of connexion; and when they end in ad, they are ufed adverbially. Sound is a quality much lefs important than fenfe; yet it is not wholly to be difregarded. Some perfons may therefore be offended by the cacophony produced by words with fuch harth terminations. Examples may indeed be adduced from the Greck, French, and German languages, in favour of words terminating in en and ad; but it must be remembered, that the harfhnefs is here foftened by the pronunciation, or by the arrangement which their inverfions allow. In our own language, fome of thefe terminations may be found; but thefe are chiefly in monofyllables, or in the participles of fome verbs. Thefe objections can be of no weight to technical terms; and if they are found fufficiently expreflive, the ear and the vocal organs will foon be reconciled to their ufe. For various illuftrations of the different fuggeftions that have been noticed in this outline, we must refer to the work itself, which contains alfo fome plates, with the new artificial figns marked upon the fkeleton, to exhibit more concifely their meaning and defign. With regard to the ftyle of Dr Barclay's tract, it is upon the whole fufficiently perfpicuous; though perhaps, in several refpects, fomewhat more adorned, and even a little more learned, than the nature of the fubject required.-A few inaccuracies have arrested our eye in a work upon language. Vocables (page 93), is neither |