Van Der Wal's response to Stecco's fascial nomenclature editorial: Some functional considerations as to nomenclature in the domain of the fascia and connective tissue

1 Interesting that both features (in themselves controversial) may both be considered to be typical for this large subcutaneous vein in the thigh region. That the origin of the name is so old (far Nomenclature, the tradition of giving definitions and names to structures and phenomena is as old as science itself. The early modern anatomist from the 16th and 17th century had to create order in the thousands of new phenomena, objects, organs and structures that they (literally) dis-covered with their new approach of dissecting human bodies and of structural analysis. Giving names and definitions is from all scientific disciplines: although very often nowadays adaptations and corrections have to be made to his taxonomy and nomenclature modern biologists still base their nomenclature on the work of Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century. The criteria the early anatomists applied for their notions and names were in the very beginning of anatomy as a scientific discipline, purely anatomical, topographical and morphological criteria. Very soon, when other scientists also started to understand anatomy functionally, there came up also functional names and notions. Of course the names that were allotted, originated from and fitted in the scientific paradigm and state of the art in that given epoch. Many anatomical names are only understandable from that context. How else would you be able to understand the notion processus mentalis (which literally means “spiritual protuberance”) for the human chin, if you don’t know that in those days the chin on the mandible was considered to be