Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Anatomy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/aanat

RESEARCH ARTICLE

On the terminology of cranial nerves

František Šimon a,∗ , Elena Marečková-Štolcová b , Libor Páč c
a
Department of Romance Studies and Classical Philology, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Petzvalova 4, SK-040 11 Košice, Slovak Republic
b
Department of Languages, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, CZ-625 00 Brno – Bohunice, Czech Republic
c
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, CZ-625 00 Brno – Bohunice, Czech Republic

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: The present contribution adopts various points of view to discuss the terminology of the twelve nervi
Received 24 November 2010 craniales. These are paired nerves and have dual names, terms with Roman ordinal numerals, i.e., the
Received in revised form 26 April 2011 nerves are numbered in the top-to-bottom direction, and descriptive historical names. The time of origin
Accepted 27 April 2011
and motivation behind the investigated terms are determined. The majority of terms come from the
17th and 18th centuries. The motivation behind most of them is (a) nerve localization, as this is in
conformity with anatomical nomenclature in general, (b) nerve function, and rarely (c) nerve appearance.
Keywords:
The occurrence of synonymous names and variants is also a focus of attention. In several cases, reference
Cranial nerves
Terminology
is made to the process called terminologization, meaning when a certain expression acquires technical
meaning and the characteristic/feature of the term.
© 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Except for the nerves I, II and spinal portion of nerve XI, the
twelve cranial nerves – twelve brain apostles – as Hyrtl (1880)
says, emerge from the brainstem and exit/enter the cranial cav-
ity through the foramina of cranial basis. They are paired nerves,
termed both on behalf of ordinal numerals, the order being in
the top-to-bottom direction, and having their descriptive historical
designations. The history of successive detection and description
of the nerves mentioned is dealt with in numerous works of con-
temporary authors (e.g., Rucker, 1966; Flamm, 1967; Shaw, 1992),
but these are interpreted mainly from the factual anatomical point
of view, and try to explain the confusion of these nerves, which
is frequently unclear. Our contribution is terminology-oriented,
studying the linguistic origin of the terms and the time of their
emergence.
The Greek word neuron was originally polysemic in ancient
Greek medicine, and was used to designate several somatic forma-
tions: a tendon, but also a nerve, ligament and vein (Hyrtl, 1880).
Praxagoras of Kos is the author who, for the first time, applied
the designation neuron for nerves (Solmsen, 1961). His disciple
Herophilus is considered to be the father of neuroanatomy; he
still knew the individual cranial nerves (von Staden, 1989) but he
himself adhered to the expression poroi. Galen (De usu partium III
813K) namely remembers “sensoric nerves descending from the
brain to eyes, which Herophilus designated as the channels”. Galen
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +421 55 6232832; fax: +421 55 6220530.
E-mail address: frantisek.simon@upjs.sk (F. Šimon).
(De usu partium III 47K) himself was clearly aware of the differences
between these anatomical formations mentioned.
In the same way, the Latin expression nervus designated a mus-
cle, a tendon, a nerve or something formed from tendons at the
beginning (Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1968).
The adjective attribute of the contemporary combined term
nervi craniales experienced a certain development. Initially, the
Greek medical literature spoke about the nerves issuing from the
brain, e.g., Galen (De symptomatum causis VII 88–89K) writes “the
nerve led from the brain”. Mondino dei Liucci (1482) speaks about
the nerves whose origo est a substantia cerebri, i.e., their origin is in
the brain; also Vesalius (1543), who uses the formulation nervi a
cerebro originem ducentes, i.e., nerves originating from the brain,
and/or, more simply, nervi cerebri, i.e., nerves of the brain, con-
tinues to keep this tradition. It is this very expression which is
met also in the works of his followers, e.g., of Colombo (1559) and
Bauhin (1597); Estienne (1545) presents a similar collocation of
words as Mondino: septem nervorum coniugationes. a cerebro nasci,
i.e., seven pairs of nerves originate in the brain. Only later, the word
cranium starts occurring in the same context. Willis (1666), e.g., sit-
uates the origin of the nerves mentioned into the skull, affirming
that nervorum paria intra cranium oriunda, i.e., the pairs of nerves
are being born inside the skull. The German anatomist Sömmering
gives an analogous opinion in the title of his well-known thesis De
basi encephali et originibus nervorum cranio egredientium, i.e., “On
the cranial basis and origins of nerves issuing from the brain”, pub-
lished in 1778. The variants mentioned together with others occur,
by rotation, in later unifying anatomical terminologies. They were
the nervi cerebrales in the Basle Anatomical Nomenclature (BNA,
1895), the nervi capitales in the nomenclature of Jena (INA, 1935),

0940-9602/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2011.04.012
448 F. Šimon et al. / Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452
however, the nervi craniales won only in that of Paris (PNA, 1955).
In the fifth revision of the PNA from 1980, the alternative term nervi
encephalici was added (Nomina anatomica, 1983). The most recent
Terminologia Anatomica (1998) excludes the last given equivalent
and offers again only one possibility – the nervi craniales.
In the currently valid anatomical nomenclature, the individ-
ual cranial nerves have double designations: they contain both an
ordinal numeral and their historical descriptive name. It is interest-
ing that the designations formed on behalf of numerical symbols,
which represent the modern way of forming terms, still originate
in antiquity. Galen, the author of the work De nervorum dissec-
tione (II 831–855K), identified seven pairs of nerves, and named
them by ordinal numerals. However, he was not the first to have
applied a numerical symbol; he himself refers to the Alexandrian
physician Marinos, teacher of his teachers, whose work, however,
has not been preserved until today. The principle of designating
individual formations on behalf of numbers was current in ancient
anatomy, Galen also applies it in his work De musculorum dis-
sectione (XVIII/2 925–1026). The numerical designations of cranial
nerves were preserved, only their number and order were changed
step by step in the course of the development of anatomy, and
it was Sömmering, at the end of the 18th century, who defined
and ordered the nerves according to their succession, which has
survived until now (Rucker, 1966).
The terminology of the individual cranial nerves, to which we
will pay attention in the following explication, has also a rich his-
tory reaching from antiquity up to the 20th century.
2. Nervus terminalis [0]
At the turn of the 20th century, a new cranial nerve was dis-
covered, nervus terminalis, which passes along the olfactory nerve
and is rudimentary in humans, although its function is debatable.
It has number 0 in today’s official anatomical nomenclature and is
called cranial nerve zero. The first description is given by G. Fritsch
in 1878 under the name “überzähliger Nerv”, i.e., supernumerary
nerve (Schwanzel-Fukuda, Pfaff, 2003). The term “terminal nerve”
was introduced by Locy (1905), who originally wanted to designate
the nerve “accessory olfactory”, but he realized that “the name is
objectionable, since it prejudices the question of its function” and
therefore proposed the name terminal nerve because it “is closely
connected with the lamina terminalis.”
3. Nervus olfactorius [I]
The vocabulary of classical Latin brings evidence of the verb
olfacere, to smell, e.g. in Celsus (De medicina 3,10), but the noun
olfactus, sense of smell, belongs to the post-classical dictionary
(Krebs, 1907). The adjective olfactorius has been derived from the
verb olfacere by the denominative suffix – torius, which is inter-
preted, by Langslow (2000), as a combination of the substantival
suffix – tor and of the adjectival suffix – ius, and which can be
understood, in this case, in the meaning of a function, a relation.
Langslow does not mention this adjective explicitly in his work but,
in the medical literature, it is represented in the substantive form
olfactorium as the name of the matter used for smelling; e.g., Pliny
the Elder (Naturalis historia 30,97) writes “initiate the pathological
sleepiness by smelling matters” (olfactoriis (sc. remediis)).
The factual delimitation of the term nervus olfactorius and its his-
tory require special mention because it does not concern the typical
cranial nerve. Benedetti (1514) was the first to recognize that the
olfactory tracts were concerned with the sense of smell, but he did
not describe the olfactory nerves (Shaw, 1992). Massa (1536) pre-
sumably described the olfactory tracts as well, but he called them
nerves (par nervorum descendentium ad nares, i.e., pair of nerves
descendent to the nostrils) (Shaw, 1992), and he did not use the
word olfactorius, as he says, de nominibus non est nostra quaestio, i.e.,
our investigation is not about the names. Vesalius (1543) did not
designate the tract as a nerve because it does not exit the cranium,
referring to Herophilus, Marinus and Galen.
This adjective was found for the first time as a specification
of one of the cranial nerves in the work of the Danish anatomist
Bartholin (1651) in a collocation of the words primum par olfacto-
rium, i.e., first pair (sc. of nerves) olfactory, although it concerned
olfactory tract.
4. Nervus opticus [II]
Analogous to the olfactory nerve, neither optic nerve represents
the typical cranial nerve. The attributive adjective opticus originates
from the Greek word optikos, i.e., optic. The first evidence of its use
in Greek is encountered in Aristotle’s work, e.g., in the word col-
location optiké theória (Metaphysica 997b), or optika (Metaphysica
1077a), i.e., both of them with the meaning of a discipline of science
relating to seeing, optics. The description of this nerve is attributed
to Herophilus, who called the nerves poroi, according to Galen’s
statement. It is not clear whether he used the adjective optikos as
well, but other authors could have applied it because Galen (De
nervorum dissectione II 833K) informs that “some authors name
them optic nerves”. He himself defines the nerve yet otherwise; it
is documented by word collocations “the nerve leading from the
brain to the eye” (De symptomatum causis VII, 88–89K) or “soft
nerves of the eyes” (De usu partium III 722K). As far as modern
anatomical works are concerned, we found opticus in Mondino’s
works (1482), Estienne (1545) gives two terms, opticus and viso-
rius; Vesalius (1543), characterised by his return to Latin anatomical
designations, provides the term nervi visorii, but, immediately after
him, authors return to the original designation, some of them apply-
ing doublets. Colombo (1559) remembers the nervi optici, hoc est
visivi seu visorii, Bartholin (1651) gives the par opticum vel viso-
rium, Varolio (1591) is known by the letter entitled De nervis opticis,
nonnullisque aliis, i.e., “On optic nerves and some others”, to his
colleague Mercurial.
5. Nervus oculomotorius [III]
The composed adjective oculomotorius is a neologism which
does not occur in classical Latin, so poor in compounds. However,
the motivation of the term is based on formulations which can
still be found in Galen’s work, and can be considered to represent
a preliminary stage of terminological fixation, thus terminologi-
sation, which, for this author, is no sporadic phenomenon. The
third pair of nerves is namely characterised as a pair assigned to
muscles which move the eyes (Galen, De nervorum dissectione II
833K), or (nerves) which move the muscles around them (i.e., eyes)
(Galen, De usu partium III 722K). The characteristics quoted are
also reflected in numerous Latin anatomical works, e.g. Mondino
(1482) presents the explanation vadunt ad oculos ad movendum, i.e.,
they lead to the eyes to move them, Estienne (1545) remarks the
nervi motores oculorum, Falloppio (1562), musculi oculum moventes,
Bauhin (1605) names (in his work) the second pair coniugatio ner-
vorum oculos moventium; later on, Bartholin (1651) defines tertium
par motorium oculorum. Willis (1666) states that these nerves pro-
prie oculorum motorii dicuntur, i.e., the nerves are properly named
oculomotors. For the first time, the compound itself was encoun-
tered in Structura nervorum by Pfeffinger (1783); somewhat later
there also appeared the French variant nerfs oculo-musculaires (Vicq
d’Azyr, 1786).
 F. Šimon et al. / Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452
6. Nervus trochlearis [IV]
The noun trochlea designates a mechanism to lift or lower heavy
weights, a pulley, sheave or reel, and is connected with the Greek
word trochileia. According to Hyrtl (1880), it was Aranzi (1587)
who was the first to present the designation trochlea in connection
with one of the eye muscles; later, in 1609, the designation mus-
culus trochlearis emerged in the work Pentaestheseion by Casserio
(1609). It was not until 1670 that the Englishman Molins, in his
work entitled Myotomia, used the designation nervus trochlearis for
nervous fibers innervating the musculus obliquus superior, whose
tendon encircles the trochlea. In the same century, Willis (1666)
designated the same nerve as nervus oculorum patheticus because
of the “pathetic” appearance of patients suffering from the paral-
ysis of the nerve, or, as Willis says, because its task is oculos
pathetice movere, i.e., to move the eyes “in a pathetic manner”.
The French form pathétiques is later encountered in Stenon’s work
(Stensens, 1669). Both names were used in parallel; however, the
Basle anatomical nomenclature, in 1895, included the term nervus
trochlearis.
7. Nervus trigeminus [V]
In classical Latin, the compound adjective trigeminus had the
meaning triple, triplex. This easily identifiable structure with three
big branches was given its name, based on its form, only in the 18th
century by the anatomist Winslow first in 1732 in the French word-
ing nerf trijumeau, later in the Latin translation trigeminus (Hyrtl,
1880). In parallel, he also presents the synonymic designation nerfs
innominés (Winslow, 1767).
8. Nervus abducens [VI]
The active present participle of the verb abducere, i.e., to take
away, started to be used to designate the sixth pair of nerves
only in modern times. Similarly as in the case of the term nervus
trochlearis, the name of the muscle which provides movement to
the eyeball, abduction, was, also here, transferred to the nerve
which supplies it by nervous fibers. And similarly as in the term
nervus oculomotorius, Bartholin’s formulation (1651) reminiscent
of musculum oculi abducentem could also be the early stage of ter-
minologisation in this case. The work of Willis (1666) contains the
identical expression. In our set of anatomical texts, we found the
term used by Sömmerring (1798). C. Bell (1803) applies, in parallel,
also the noun abductores; this, however, is typical of designating
muscles.
9. Nervus facialis [VII]
The relational adjective facialis, derived from the Latin noun
facies, face, does not form part of the classical vocabulary, but was
common in the Middle Ages, having the meaning “facial”, “frontal”
(Medieval Latin Word List, 1934). The Czech Medieval Latin dic-
tionary (Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, 1988) explains
it as qui faciem pertinet, i.e., which concerns the face. In the mate-
rial studied, in 1762, we found ramus facialis being the designation
of one branch of this seventh pair (Haller, 1762). The term nervus
facialis itself, which was later included in the Basle anatomical
nomenclature (BNA, 1895), was used only by Sömmering in 1778.
In the French mutation, its form is nerf facial (Vicq d’Azyr, 1786). It is
of interest that in his French article published in 1751, Meckel used
collocation nerfs de la face and in his later Latin summary (1791)
has the term nervus facialis. Bell (1803) names it in an English text
as facial nerve or he uses the Latin term nervus communicans faciei.
449
Hyrtl (1863) documented the doublet nervus facialis s. communicans
faciei.
10. Nervus intermedius
Today, the intermediate nerve is considered as a root (part)
of the facial nerve. In the past, the close proximity of nervus
facialis and nervus vestibulocochlearis caused these two nerves to
be understood as a one single pair of nerves under one name, par
quintum, or septimum, i.e., fifth or seventh pair. Due to physical
qualities, Falloppio (1562) distinguished portio dura, i.e., hard part
(=nervus facialis) and portio mollis, i.e., soft part (=nervus vestibu-
locochlearis) in this pair. Nervus intermedius was probably first
identified by Eustach, 1714, but in his engravings only, without
any text (Alfieri et al., 2010). Later on Wrisberg (1777) described
it as a separate branch, and his pupil Sömmerring called it por-
tio inter par communicans faciei et auditorium media Sömmering,
1778, i.e., middle part between communicating pair of the face
and auditory (part); in the Latin translation of Haller’s Physiol-
ogy edited by Wrisberg it occurs as portio intermedia (1780). Portio
dura and mollis later received the names nervus facialis and nervus
vestibulocochlearis, and portio intermedia was named nervus inter-
medius, or nervus intermedius Wrisbergii. Sapolini (1881) has even
proposed regarding this nerve as 13th cranial nerve (Alfieri et al.,
2010).
11. Nervus vestibulocochlearis [VIII]
The eighth pair of nerves was known to Galen, who used to
designate it by a special name – to akustikon neuron (Galen, De com-
positione medicamentorum secundum locos XII 600K), because it
penetrates through the aperture of the auditory organ (Galen, De
nervorum dissectione II 838K). In modern times, Mondino (1482),
describing this nerve, reminds us of the instrumentum auditus,
Benedetti (1528) the sensorium auditus, Estienne (1545) states that
(in his work) the fifth pair of nerves in auditorium porum tendit,
i.e., leads into the auditory aperture. Falloppio (1562) uses the
Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective, at the same time stress-
ing that it is nervus auditorius a me vocatus, i.e., auditory nerve
named so by myself. It was he who introduced the anatomical
term cochlea (Falloppio, 1562), which later, in the 19th century,
became the basis of the adjective in the current designation for
this pair of nerves (Marcovecchio, 1993). The Latin adjective audi-
torius, and/or its English equivalent auditory or the French one,
auditif, occurred up until the 19th century when the Greek vari-
ant, nervus acusticus (Lenhossék, 1818; Quain, 1828) reemerged.
This nerve had two branches, named later, according to the forma-
tions with which they were connected, nervus cochleae and nervus
vestibuli (Hyrtl, 1863), or nervus vestibularis and nervus cochlearis
(Cunningham’s Text-book of Anatomy, 1918). In the three offi-
cial anatomical nomenclatures from the end of the 19th century,
and from that of the 20th century, the terminology of this nerve
was subject to quite frequent changes. It is true that the tradi-
tional designation nervus acusticus, enlarged in the INA (1935) to
nervus statoacusticus, which, in the PNA (1955), was only modified
to nervus stato-acusticus sive octavus (the only instance of an ordinal
number with a descriptive name) found its way into the BNA (1895),
but, in spite of this, a crucial change occurred at the revision of the
PNA of 1960, and the designations of the branches nervus vestibu-
laris and nervus cochlearis formed the basis for a new designation,
nervus vestibulocochlearis. Thus, instead of a term expressing the
function, a term is introduced which is based on localization of the
nerve.
450 F. Šimon et al. / Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452
12. Nervus glossopharyngeus [IX]
The compound adjective glossopharyngeus, formed from the
Greek words glóssa, i.e., tongue, and pharynx, i.e., throat, pharynx, is
not documented either in classical Greek or Latin. The noun glossa,
however, was used in Latin too. Varro (De lingua Latina 7,10) uses
it in the meaning “a dictionary of unknown words”. The Greek
term pharynx is encountered as early as in Homer’s poem (Odyssea
9, 373; 19, 480), and its Latin equivalent is the word fauces. The
compound word itself was noticed for the first time, in our file,
in Haller’s work (1762). Flamm (1967) mentions that Sömmer-
ing attributes the designation to Haller. The motivation is, also
in the above-mentioned case, localization, and the early stage can
once again be, e.g., Galen’s statement (De nervorum dissectione II
841–942K), which specifies that this nerve leads into the pharyn-
geal muscle and the root of the tongue, or the definition given by
Falloppio (1562), who writes that it leads to the glossal muscles and
to those which envelop the neck.
13. Nervus vagus [X]
The adjective vagus belongs into the vocabulary of classical Latin,
and its meaning is wandering, mobile, diffuse. According to Hyrtl
(1880), the adjective vagus was used for the first time by the German
anatomist W. Rolfink in 1656 in his work entitled Dissertationes
anatomicae, but we also noticed that Bartholin had used it a little
sooner, in 1651. At the same time, the Italian anatomist provides
reasons why he gives this name to the ninth pair of nerves: quia
plurimis hinc partibus prospicit, etiam omnibus internis in medio ven-
tre et infimo sitis, i.e., because from there it leads to several parts,
even into all the internal ones, and into the regions in the middle
and lower parts of the abdomen (Bartholin, 1651). The early stage
of the terminologisation of this expression could still be an older
statement the author of which is the French anatomist Du Laurens
(1600): sextum nervorum par amplissimum vagatur et excurrit per
omnia fere viscera, i.e., the sixth, the most extended, pair of nerves
moves and projects into almost all the viscera. It is worth mention-
ing that Haller (1762) introduces even the term multivagus nervus,
but for the nervus facialis.
14. Nervus accessorius [XI]
This complicated nerve results from the conjuncture of two
roots, radix cranialis and radix spinalis. The cranial root emerges
from medulla oblongata, and the spinal root emerges from spinal
cord. It was Willis (1666) who first defined this nerve as an inde-
pendent one, and the designation originates from him as well. That
is to say, he originally considered it to be a spinal nerve which he
“added” to the nervus vagus, one of the “brain” pairs, and therefore
he used the formulation nervus spinalis ad par vagum accessorius, i.e.,
spinal nerve added to the peregrinating pair. The adjective accesso-
rius was not available in classical Latin but was used in the Middle
Ages with the meaning accessory, annexed (Niermeyer, 1976). The
fifth edition of Quain’s Elements of anatomy (Quain, 1848) pro-
posed a shortened form of the term: spinal nerve accessory, the
adjective accessory was later termed, i.e., it was not used with
the adjective spinal any more. Accessory meant originally, acces-
sory to the vagus nerve. When it became recognized, as early as
1893, that the “accessory” fibers to the vagus nerve came from the
same medullary nuclei as the rest of the vagal efferent fibers, peo-
ple began to view the “accessory” fibers as part of the vagus nerve
proper, the word “accessory” came to be associated with the “true”,
i.e., spinal, component of the nerve, no longer being considered in
the context of “accessory to the vagus” (Anthoney, 1993). In par-
allel, there occurred for a long time the eponymous term nervus
accessorius Willisii (Páč, 2010).
15. Nervus hypoglossus [XII]
The Greek word hypoglóssios means sublingual, and in Greek
literature it was also used in the medical sphere. Aristotle
(Historia animalium 506a) names, by the substantivised expression
hypoglóttion, the sublingual region, while Hippocrates (De mor-
bis 2,31), by the noun hypoglóssis, designates a swelling under the
tongue. Hyrtl (1880) considers the adjective hypoglossus to be a
barbarism. The nerve was probably known already to Galen (De
nervorum dissectione II 839K) but in his concept, it was the sev-
enth pair: “the seventh pair of nerves prolonged from the brain to
the muscles of the tongue”. Mondino (1482) provides an explana-
tion that septimum par nervorum, qui ad linguam tendunt ad dandum
sensum gustus et motum linguae, i.e., the seventh pair of nerves
which lead to the tongue to give it the sense of taste and movement.
Also, according to Vesalius (1543), this pair of nerves is septimum
par ad linguae radicem descendens, i.e., the seventh pair descending
to the root of the tongue radix. The work of Bauhin (1605) con-
tains the formulation (septima) coniugatio linguam movens, i.e. (the
seventh) pair moving the tongue. Willis (1666) names it nervus lin-
guae motus, i.e., the nerve of movement of the tongue, Eustachi
(1728) designates it (nervus) ipsius (sc. linguae) motorius dictus, i.e.
(the nerve) called that which moves the tongue. The Blankaert
(1748) dictionary records the nervus linguae motorius. This term,
initially in agreement with the designation nervus oculomotorius,
underlined the function of the nerve but later, the motivation condi-
tioned by the place of occurrence predominated. The Greek variant
hypoglossus appears in the 17th century, the French equivalent nerfs
hypoglosses (but also paire linguale) is presented by Winslow (1767,
first edition in 1732) and in the French Dictionnaire universel de
médecine, in 1747 (James, 1747). Vicq d’Azyr (1786) mentions nerf
lingual, Haller (1762) names it (nervus) lingualis medius, Bell (1803)
documented all the possibilities – lingual, hypoglossal, sublingual.
The equivalents lingualis and hypoglossus were used alternatively
in anatomy. It is surprising that, although the anatomical nomen-
clature is based predominantly on Latin, the Greek expression
hypoglossus was integrated into the BNA, and the term nervus sub-
lingualis fulfils another designating function.
16. Conclusion
As far as the time of emergence of the individual terms denoting
cranial nerves is concerned, it can be stated in conclusion that they
originate in antiquity, but the majority of contemporary designa-
tions date from the 17th and 18th centuries. The time of emergence
of descriptive designations is presented in Table 1.
Similarly, as the designations originate from various time peri-
ods, their motivation is different as well. Localization appears to
be the most frequent; this group is formed by nervus facialis,
intermedius, vestibulocochlearis, glossopharyngeus, and hypoglossus.
Secondarily, nervus trochlearis and nervus terminalis can be taken
as motivation by position, because this designation marks the
proximity of, and the connection with musculus trochlearis, lamina
terminalis respectively. A designation method is regular in anatomy,
e.g. the thyroid gland is butterfly-shaped but its lobes partially
surround the right and left sides of the thyroid cartilage which
resembles a shield. Also, the motivation of nervus vagus lies, cum
grano salis, in localization, because this designation suggests that
the nerve “peregrinates” through many places of the body.
The senses played an important role in the motivation of desig-
nations of cranial nerves. In Galen’s works, only three descriptive
designations occur and all of them are motivated by senses. Galen
 F. Šimon et al. / Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452 451

Table 1 Table 2
The time of emergence of the term. Motivation of terms.

Nervus Century Motivation Term

2nd 17th 18th 19th 20th Localisation Facialis

Intermedius
0 Terminalis 1905 Vestibulocochlearis
I Olfactorius 1651 Glossopharyngeus
II Opticus Galen Hypoglossus
III Oculomotorius 1783 (Secondarily) trochlearis
IV Trochlearis 1670 Terminalis
V Trigeminus 1732 Vagus
VI Abducens 1798 Function Olfactorius
VII Facialis 1762 Opticus
Intermedius 1778 Oculomotorius
VIII Vestibulocochlearis 1960 Abducens
IX Glossopharyngeus 1762 Appearance Trigeminus
X Vagus 1651 Other circumstance Accessorius
XI Accessorius 1666
XII Hypoglossus 1732

References

himself realised this quality of theirs even expressis verbis. It is the
optic nerve: “they are called optic nerves and have got the name
from their activity” (Galenus, De nervorum dissectione II 833K),
also the gustatory nerve (unclear identification of the nerve): “some
people name this pair of nerves the gustatory nerve because the
sense of taste arises by their mediation” (Galenus, De nervorum
dissectione II 837K), and the acoustic nerve: “it penetrates into the
organ of hearing, and is called acoustic nerve” (Galenus, De ner-
vorum dissectione II 838K). In the Latin version, Vesalius (1543)
comments on the above-mentioned quality later, saying: ut pri-
mum par visus, quintum vero auditus, sic hoc tertium gustus censetur
instrumentum, gustatorius nervus merito nuncupatur, i.e., as the first
pair is optic and the fifth again acoustic, so the third is considered
to be the gustatory organ, and therefore it is rightly called gusta-
tory nerve. The fourth sense with an unambiguously localised organ
was added only in modern age, namely par olfactorium (Bartholin,
1651). In the modern terminology, only two names were left with
the motivation of a sense: nervus olfactorius and opticus; the original
term nervus acusticus/auditorius was substituted by the denotation
nervus vestibulocochlearis.
The senses belong to the motivation by function, and two other
terms – nervus oculomotorius and nervus abducens – can also be
ranked here.
The appearance is the motivation basis of the term nervus
trigeminus. A quite specific situation is that of the nervus accessorius,
whose denotation can only be explained on a historical background.
Most terms for cranial nerves are motivated by localization,
as this conforms with anatomical nomenclature in general. Cra-
nial nerve names motivated by function follow localization, and
motivation by appearance is rare. The motivation of cranial nerve
names can be compared to the motivation of muscle terms. The
most frequent in designation of the muscles are terms motivated by
localization (approximately 60%), followed by appearance (approx-
imately 25%). Terms motivated by function form a third group
(approximately 15%). Nomenclature muscle names themselves are
often multiverbal and form combinations of several motivations
to obtain exactness. It is understandable that appearance plays a
small role in the motivation of nerve terms, particularly in cranial
nerves. The only one with this motivation, trigeminus, has such a
clearly distinctive shape that it has become the basis for naming. It
is interesting that nearly all nerve terms with a motivation other
than localization, i.e., function and appearance, belong to the cranial
nerves. A survey of motivations is presented in Table 2.
The traditional Sömmerring’s division of twelve cranial nerves
does not seem to be unchangeable and definitive and therefore, the
official nomenclature could be enriched by other nerve names.
Alfieri, A., Strauss, Ch., Prell, J., Peschke, E., 2010. History of the nervus intermedius
of Wrisberg. Ann. Anat. 192, 139–144.
Aristotle, 1965. Historia animalium, vol. I. Heinemann, London.
Baxter, J.H., Johnson, C. (Eds.), 1934. Medieval Latin Word List, from British and Irish
Sources. Oxford University Press, London.
Benedetti, A., 1514. Anatomice sive historia corporis humani. Stephanus, Pari-
sium.(Paris).
Blankaert, S., 1748. Lexicon medicum. Bierwirth, Halae Magdeburgicae (Halle).
Eustach, B., 1714. Tabulae anatomicae. Francesco Gonzaga, Romae.(Rome).
Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology (Ed.), 1998. Terminologia
Anatomica. Thieme, Stuttgart.
Flamm, E.S., 1967. Historical observations on the cranial nerves. J. Neurosurg. 27,
285–297.
Hyrtl, J., 1880. Onomatologia Anatomica. Braumüller, Wien.
International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (Ed.), 1983. Nomina anatomica.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
James, R., 1747. Dictionnaire universel de médecine, vol. IV. Paris.
Krebs, J.P., 1907. Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache, vol. II. Schwabe, Basel.
Langslow, D., 2000. Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Lee, G.M. (Ed.), 1968. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Clarendon, Oxford.
Marcovecchio, E., 1993. Dizionario etimologico storico dei termini medici. Festina
Lente, Firenze.
Martínek, J. (Ed.), 1988. Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, Slovník
středověké latiny v českých zemích, vol. 11. Academia, Praha.
Niermeyer, J.F., 1976. Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus. Brill, Leiden.
Páč, L., 2010. Slovník anatomických eponym (A Dictionary of Anatomical Eponyms),
second suppl. ed. Galén, Praha.
Rucker, C.W., 1966. History of the numbering of the cranial nerves. Mayo Clin. Proc.
41, 453–461.
Schwanzel-Fukuda, M., Pfaff, D.W., 2003. The structure and function of the nervus
terminalis. In: Doty, R.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation. , second ed.
Dekker Inc., Basel/New York, pp. 1635–1681.
Shaw, J.P., 1992. A history of enumeration of the cranial nerves by European and
British anatomists from the time of Galen to 1895, with comments on nomen-
clature. Clin. Anat. 5, 466–484.
Solmsen, F., 1961. Greek philosophy and the discovery of nerves. Museum Hel-
veticum 18, 150–167, pp. 169–197.
von Staden, H., 1989. Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Sources
Anthoney, T.R., 1993. Neuroanatomy and the Neurologic Exam: A Thesaurus of
Synonyms, Similar-Sounding Non-Synonyms and Terms of Variable Meanings.
CRC-Press, Boca Raton.
Aranzi, G.C., 1587. De humano foetu liber.; eiusdem Anatomicarum observationum
liber. . .. Brechtanus, Venetiae (Venezia).
Aristotle, 1970. In: Ross, W.D. (Ed.), Metaphysica, vols. I and II. Clarendon, Oxford.
Bartholin, T., 1651. Anatomia. Hackius, Lugdunum Batavorum (Leiden).
Bauhin, C., 1597. Anatomica corporis virilis et muliebris historia. Le Preux, Lugdunum
(Lyon).
Bauhin, C., 1605. Theatrum anatomicum. Beckerus, Francofurtum ad Moenum
(Frankfurt am Main).
Bell, C., 1803. The Anatomy of the Human Body. Strahan, London.
Benedetti, A., 1528. Anatomice; sive De hystoria corporis humani. Hervagius, Argen-
toratum (Strasbourg).
Casserio, G., 1609. Pentaestheseion. hoc est de quinque sensibus liber. Misserinus,
Venetiae (Venezia).
Celsus, 1915. In: Marx, F. (Ed.), Quae supersunt (De medicina). Teubner, Leipzig.
Colombo, M.R., 1559. De re anatomica libri XV. Bevilacqua, Venetiae (Venezia).
Du Laurens, A., 1600. Historia anatomica corporis. Orry, Parisium (Paris).
452 F. Šimon et al. / Annals of Anatomy 193 (2011) 447–452
Estienne, C., 1545. De dissectione partium corporis humani libri tres. Colinaeus,
Parisium (Paris).
Eustachi, B., 1728. Tabulae anatomicae. Pagliarini, Roma.
Falloppio, G., 1562. Observationes anatomicae. Birckmann, Colonia.
Haller, A., 1762. Elementa physiologiae corporis humani. Grasset, Lousanna (Lau-
sanne).
Haller, A., 1780. Primae lineae physiologiae. . . auctae ab H.A. Wrisberg. Vanden-
hoeck, Goettingae (Göttingen).
Hippocrates, 1839–1861. In: Littré, E. (Ed.), Oeuvres complètes, vols. I–X. Baillière,
Paris.
Homeros, 1927. In: Dindorf, W., Hentze, C. (Eds.), Odyssea. Teubner, Leipzig.
Hyrtl, J., 1863. Lehrbuch der Anatomie des Menschen, eighth ed. Braumüller, Wien.
Lenhossék, M., 1818. Physiologia medicinalis. Trattner, Pestinum
(Budapest).
Locy, W.A., 1905. On a newly recognized nerve connected with the forebrain of
selachians. Anat. Anz. Bd. 26, 111–123.
Massa, N., 1536. Liber Introductorius Anatomiae. Bindoni et Pasini, Venetiae
(Venice).
Meckel, J.F., 1751. Dissertation anatomique sur les nerfs de la face. Histoire de
l’Académie Royale des Sciences et des Belles-Lettres de Berlin, vol. VII, pp.
19–130.
Meckel, J.F., 1791. De nervis faciei. In: Ludwig, C.F. (Ed.), 1791–1793. Scriptores
neurologici minores selecti sive opera minora ad anatomiam physiolo-
giam et pathologiam nervorum spectantia, vol. 2. Iunius, Lipsia (Leipzig),
pp. 204–218.
Molins, W., Scarborough, C., 1670. Myotomia. Rogers, London.
Mondino dei Liucci, 1482. Anatomia. De Haarlem and Walbeck, Bologna.
Pfeffinger, J., 1783. De structura nervorum. Altera sectio. Argentoratum (Strasbourg).
In: Ludwig, C.F. (Ed.), 1791–1793. Scriptores neurologici minores selecti sive
opera minora ad anatomiam, physiologiam et pathologiam nervorum spectan-
tia, vol. 1. Iunius, Lipsia (Leipzig), pp. 31–60.
Plinius Maior (Pliny the Elder), (Jones, W.H.S., Ed., Transl.) 1989. (Natural History,
vol. VIII, libri XXVIII–XXXII). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Quain, J., 1828. Elements of Descriptive and Practical Anatomy: For the Use of Stu-
dents. Simpkin and Marshall, London.
Quain, J., 1848. In: Quain, R., Sharpey, W. (Eds.), Elements of Anatomy. , fifth ed.
Taylor/Walton and Maberly, London.
Robinson, A., 1918. Cunningham’s Text-book of Anatomy , fifth ed. Wood, New York.
Sapolini, G., 1881. Studi anatomici sul nervo di Wrisberg e su la corda del timpano
o tredicesimo nervo craniale. Ann. Univ. Med. Chir. 255, 3–25.
Sömmering, S.T., 1778. De basi encephali et originibus nervorum cranio egredien-
tium libri quinque. Vandenhoeck, Göttingen.
Sömmerring, S.T., 1798. De corporis humani fabrica. Tomus IV. Varrentrappius et
Wennerus, Traiecti ad Moenum (Frankfurt am Main).
Stensens (Stenon), N., 1669. Discours de Monsieur Stenon sur l’anatomie du cerveau.
De Ninville, Paris.
Varolio, C., 1591. De nervis opticis, nonnullisque aliis, praeter communem opin-
ionem in humano capite observatis. Wechelus et Fischerus, Francofurtum
(Frankfurt am Main).
Varro, M.T., 1910. In: Goetz, G., Schoell, F. (Eds.), De lingua latina. Teubner, Leipzig.
Vesalius, A., 1543. De humani corporis fabrica libri septem. Oporinus, Basilea (Basel).
Vicq d’Azyr, F., 1786. Traité d’anatomie et de physiologie, vol. I. Didot l’aîné, Paris.
Willis, T., 1666. Cerebri anatome cui accessit nervorum descriptio et usus. Schagen,
Amstelodamum (Amsterdam).
Winslow, J.B., 1767 (first edition in 1732). Exposition anatomique de la structure du
corps humain, tome second. Savoye et Didot le Jeune, Paris.
Wrisberg, H.A., 1777. Observationes anatomicae de quinto pare nervorum encephali
et de nervis qui ex eodem duram matrem ingredi falso dicuntur. J.C. Dieterich.