The Bible the flock will not follow.

To the Editor, Anatomical Sciences Education:What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by anyother name would smell as sweet.—William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1597Let’s face it, if a committee had written Romeo and Juliet,we could have been left with, ‘‘...that which we call a mem-ber of the family Rosaceae by any other name....’’ More sci-entiﬁcally accurate, perhaps, but nonetheless losing somethingalong the way.In reading Martin et al.’s (2009) paper, a ﬁne and valuablereview, I was constantly of two minds. The ﬁrst was admira-tion and appreciation for the ﬁne FCAT (Federative Commit-tee on Anatomical Terminology; FCAT, 1998) scholars, manywhom I have long known and respected, who so conscien-tiously and seriously approached their task. I have in mymind images of wise sages, books piled ﬂoor to ceiling, argu-ing into the night on ﬁne terminological and etymologicalpoints, their energy, dedication, and knowledge without peer.I then ﬂash back to images from my youth of equally learnedTalmudic scholars arguing over the intricacies of the goodbook in ways average folks could never appreciate. While Inever actually understood what they did, my father wouldtell me always to ‘‘hush’’ as we passed them, reminding methat they were the ‘‘guardians’’ of our teachings.Unfortunately, while these wise men were guarding thetenets of my ancestors’ faith, I developed a taste for ham andcheese sandwiches and going to the movies on Saturdaymorning instead of listening to them in synagogue. Someothers may have heard their wisdom; my mind drifted. Thepoint is, they were learned and wise, and often right, but myears did not—or could not—hear, and I went my own way.Thus, while my ﬁrst thoughts were for appreciation for FCATmembers and their efforts, my second thoughts were thatthose efforts, like those of the Talmudic scholars of myyouth, missed the point and the intended audience.FCAT’s desire, to establish a type of ‘‘orthodoxy’’ of lan-guage use in a ‘‘heterodox’’ terminological world—correct inspirit as it might be—may be a quixotic quest. As can be seenfrom Martin et al. (2009), there is clearly lack of acceptancefor many FCAT suggestions even among a brotherhood ofanatomists. While we anatomists are thus not eager to accepttheir suggested revisions, it must be remembered that ourclinical brethren—those who will take the lead in directingour young charges after they leave us—are even less likely toaccept changes created by some anatomical committee, nomatter how well intentioned and learned (and even correct)they may be. Hope of changing many clinicians in this regardwill likely be a fruitless effort (indeed, legions still unsheathetheir scalpels in defense of their favorite eponyms.) Trust me,I have tried. For example, in my own inch of the anatomicalworld, the larynx, there has been continuing disagreement onwhat to call the vocal ‘‘folds’’ (for some of us amongst themost important structures in mammals; no function 5 no airin 5 no us!) In 1741, Antoine Ferrein coined the term vocal‘‘cords’’ comparing their action to those of the strings of aviolin (Ferrein, 1741). Exupere Joseph Bertin (1745) strenu-ously objected, correctly pointing out that they were the ter-minations of a plica, or fold, and that the ‘‘correct’’ anatomi-cal terms should always be used (Bertin, 1745). Anatomistshave ever since championed vocal ‘‘folds’’. The rest of theworld? To the vast majority of clinicians, and any patient Ihave ever met, those things in the larynx are the vocal‘‘cords,’’ and cords they will likely stay.So anatomists do not agree, and clinicians will alwaysmarch to their own drummer. There is yet another problemwith FCAT and their terminological revisions, and one that,in my opinion, largely doomed their noble efforts from thebeginning: the mode of communicating this material to theirintended audience. Indeed, for any product to succeed, itmust be widely, rapidly, and openly communicated. You mayhave the best product, but if no one knows about it, then itwill never have an impact. Publishing an expensive book,only in Latin and English, is not the way in the Internet age.How many anatomists beyond an inner circle used, or evenknew, of the book, or about the reasons for suggestingchanges (many of which were very good)?We in anatomy must also address a deeper question thatthe issue of FCAT, their efforts and publication, raises.Indeed, for me, it is the central question: Is a formal stand-ardization of terms—a terminologia—needed? On the onehand, it can be argued that without this effort, or a similarone, we will have naught but a sea of competing terms.What is a scientiﬁc discipline without a consensus base onits language? On the other hand, it can be raised that inthis age of revised curricula, reduced hours, integrated mate-rial, dwindling funds, and fewer ‘‘professional’’ (read: ‘‘in-the-know, life-long’’) anatomists, is it a ‘‘high priority’’ (orany priority?) for us to go back and forth revising or stand-ardizing anatomical terms? Is this the best use of our timeor our students’ time? What image do we project to ourclinical colleagues and others when we argue over whatappear to them as antiquated minutiae? As one of my clini-cal colleagues remarked at a recent National Board of Med-ical Examiner’s meeting overhearing some of us disagree on