nervous mechanisms, this activity being, in nearly every case in the normal individual, a specific response to radiant energy of certain wave-lengths and intensities. It may be exemplified by an enumeration of characteristic instances, such as red, yellow, blue, black, white, gray, pink, etc.
This means that if we are asked to specify the color of a gray object we must state that it has no color, and hence lies outside of our province. Similarly, we should be compelled to affirm that certain browns are identical in color with certain yellows, oranges, and reds because they possess the same hue and saturation, although their brilliances are quite different. The necessity of reactions of this sort on the part of the scientific colorimetrician would cause serious embarrassment in practice. It seems necessary to permit a certain degree of overlapping of the provinces of colorimetry and photometry, and possibly it would be desirable to include the latter under the former as a special branch. A way out of this dilemma appears possible to the chairman if we can decide to employ the Greek root, chroma, in a different sense from the Latin root, color. There seems to be no particular etymological reason for regarding these roots as exact equivalents, and it is in line with economy of terminology to differentiate between their technical meanings. We therefore propose that the root, color, and its derivatives be employed hereafter to designate all visual qualities, including those of the gray series as well as those possessing hue and saturation. (The German equivalent, Farbe, is already used in this sense.) The root, chroma, and its derivatives, on the other hand, will be used to designate visual qualities possessing hue and saturation and excluding the gray series, with its terminal members, black and white. Such a separation of meanings is far more defensible etymologically than many distinctions which have been formally established in scientific nomenclature; for example, the distinction between physics, the general science of material properties, and physiology, the special science of vital processes, both of which terms must be considered to have the same etymological significance because of the common Greek root which they contain. In harmony with the above general recommendation the following subsidiary developments may be indicated. The word, chroma, may be substituted bodily for the word, color, when the latter is intended in the restricted sense, thus red, green, pink, lavender, etc., are chromas, while black, any gray, and white are not chromas, although all of these qualities are correctly designated as colors. This usage of the term chroma may involve a slight confusion with its use by some authorities as a synonym for saturation but it will be noted that the change involved is only a small one, being simply the substitution of a qualitative for a quantitative meaning in practically the same context. The present report recommends that chroma be not used as an equivalent of saturation. If we recognize the suggested distinction between the Greek and Latin roots it is not a contradiction in terms to speak of an “achromatic color” nor is it a tautology to refer to a “chromatic color.” (cf. German: bunien Farben.) The distinction in question has the advantage of preserving all of the derivatives of the root, chroma, in their accepted meanings, and there are so many of these derivatives so firmly fixed in scientific discussion as to make it practically impossible to eliminate or to modify them. All such terms as chromatic, achromatic, chromaphore,
