accepted by anatomists. If they do not accept words which are standard in other sciences, they should at least, give some reason which is more scientific than to ,simply state that a term is preferable. The Committee states : “We cannot afford to disregard the nomenclature of other sciences in forming our own, and while there are instances in which we have by determined effort, succeeded in establishing the use of some words which have conflicted with their use in other sciences, we do not feel that it is worth the effort and the resulting confusion consequent thereto.” In referring to the word “mandible,” the Committee states that: “* * ,* it has caused much confusion in anatomical nomenclature, for the reason that the nomenclature of the teeth, jaws and surrounding parts has been built around the word ‘maxillary.’ @ * +” We are willing to admit that we do not possess the intelligence to follow the reasons of such a statement quoted from the report of the Committee; for anatomically speaking, we can conceive of nothing more unscientific or confusing to a group of men who are versed in anatomical terms, than to describe “mandibular” conditions and parts by using the word “maxillary.” The reason which the Committee gives for preferring “cuspid” and “bicuspid” to “canine” and “premolar” is so unscientific that it would be ridiculou8s to even consider it if the report had not received the sanction of the House of Delegates of the American Dentists Association, In using the words “mesial” and “distal” the Committee admits that the term does not conform with “anatomical nomenclature.” Nevertheless, they recommend that the Dental profe:ssion continue using them. We believe it would be much better to admit the terms were incorrectly used and replace them by words which have a positive and recognized meaning in other sciences, and thereby not only avoid confusion in Dentistry, but show to the world that dentistry is big enough to admit it has made a mistake and not be small and biased and continue using incorrect terms and hold the science up to ridicule before other scientific bodies, We will suggest that the next Committee on nomenclature that attempts to consider anatomical terms be willing to admit that anatomists probably know more about anatomy than dentists do, and therefore accept terms which have a scientific meaning and not recommend words which the Committee admits are used incorrectly.
T IS very important that the dentist possess definite knowledge in regard to the action of certain foods from a chemical and systemic standpoint.’ Physiological chemistry then becomes a very important subject with which the practitioner of dentistry should be familiar. The work of Pettibone is not so ultra-scientific but that the average reader can understand it. A brief review of the &different elements and
*Physiological Chemistry, Medical $3.25.
Chemistry. BY School University
J. V. Pettibone, Ph.D. Assistant Professw Minnesota. Published by C. V. Mosby Co.,
of Physiological St. Louis. Price
various carbohydrates are given the consideration to which they are entitled. Fats and allied foodstuffs are also considered from a chemical as well as a physiological standpoint and the proteins come in for a similar study. Of particular interest to the dental profession is the chapter on some familiar foodstuffs and the changes which take place in these substance3 h?different methods of cooking. The chapters on digestion and on metabolism are ones which rcc~~lirt! more than passing notice of the dental profession at the present day.
A Letter from Dr. Virgil Editor
Jlay I not commend you for the publication of Dr. C. 0. Simpson’s t,houghts on the present day dangerous vogue of stressing the srtificialitiex and nonessentials of dentistry, which appeared in the October, 1922, nnmher of your Journal on pages 671 and 672. If the dental profession allows itself to grow callous to “cuckoo t~inrlc~s” and (‘overstuffed rose or turquoise carpets,” it will only be a matter of time when many noble and worth-n-hile traditions are dragged into thr stifhng dust of ornate commercialities. In all seriousness, it seems to me to be as much the duty of our profession to protest against undesirable and dbstructive advertising by commrntiai houses as it is the set purpose of some commercial supply houses to insist -crl~)lr their inherent right to spread any type of advertising propaganda. Drntistr.~ can be kept clean only by the display of such admirable courage as :.-out Journal shows in giving prominence to the healthful criticism of Th. Yitttlwn. Very truly yours, (Signed) Virgil .T,oc1~. December 10, 1922.
PPLIED ORTIEODONTIA” is the title of a book by James D. JI:tt(‘oy of Los Angeles which has just made its appearance. Dr. McCoy as an author is not entirely new in the dental field as he was connected with the Irdernationul Joz~ml of Orthodmkia and Oral Surga~y as editor of the radiographic department and also prepared a book on radiogThis is his first attempt raphy which was published several yea.rs ago. towards writing a book on orthodontia. A careful perusal shows that the book differs very little from others which have made their appearance in the past few years. Dr. McCoy has long been an enthusiastic advocate of modelling compound for taking irn*“Applied
Illustrated By James D. McCoy, MS., D.D.S. PhiIadetphia and New York. Price $4.00.