Note on the Term "Position"

that we should construct new terms, as these would ultimately lead to the same confusion among our successors. All that, in my opinion, we should attempt in most cases is a careful and logical definition of terms, based on our present knowledge. To-night I wish to speak briefly on the definition of the term " position," as it is not only defined in our text-books in the most contradictory and imperfect manner, but even our best definition is contradictory when applied. Position is usually defined as " how the back points," a definition that fails when we speak of face cases, as the left mento-anterior position is here evidently how the front of the body points. The definition I would suggest for position is as follows:?" Position is the relation to the upper strait of the pelvis of that part of the foetus which should first rotate to the front in the movement of internal rotation." This involves almost no alteration in the nomenclature of the positions in head and transverse presentations, but clashes with our present nomenclature in breech presentations. We speak of these usually as sacro-anterior or sacro-posterior, as the case may be. Now this is not consistent either with the old terminology, or the change I propose. The sacrum is not the functional equivalent of the occiput, chin, or shoulder. It makes the naming of breech positions easy, but it sacrifices accuracy for that purpose. Breech presentations should be named from the hip, as follows,?Left coxa-cotyloid, right coxa-cotyloid, with the addition of sacro-anterior or sacroposterior as required. The whole nomenclature of positions would thus be as follows:?