Introduction. Study of cervical fasciae represents major difficulties, because the authors did not synchronize over the time a common opinion about the fascia and terminology’s classification. In the manuals of anatomy in English, French and Russian the same formations are specified differently. Thus, the prevertebral fascia is determined by the French anatomists as being aponeurosis. English anatomists name it – “alar fascia” and the Russian literature, which is based on the classification given in the manual of V. N. Shevkunenko, considers that it is correct to name it fascia prevertebralis, which participates in the formation of the respective muscle sheaths. Taking this fact into account the neck fascia needs to be regarded through the practical approach related to the clarification of the ways of purulent propagations and elaboration of surgical approach methods. It is well known that it is difficult to establish and systemize the number of fasciae on the neck, the fact which is determined by the age, physical development, gender, method of investigation etc. Aim of the study. Thus, the goal of this work is the elucidation of author’s priorities in the study, description and classification of cervical fasciae. Results. The main cause of the divergences and contradictions in the description of the neck fasciae is determined by the lack of common concepts, generally accepted, about the structure of fascia and other connective-fibrous formations. That is why practically each connectivefibrous structure in the working field can be named (and it is frequently named) fascia, also the passion for the “fasciology” led to the fact that the term fascia was assigned even to typical adventitia – coverings of organs and sometimes even a portion of the organ covering, for example the pharynx (fascia faringobasilaris). Thus, the additional searching for the “correct” names of neck fasciae and the copyright in their description seem to be inopportune because of the “limitation status”, including the incertitude of the main concepts (tissue, fascia, aponeureosis, laminae, plates, etc.). Now the term of “fascia” is unanimously accepted, notwithstanding that it has an indicative character over a concrete structure, but it corresponds sufficiently to the existent idea about fasciae as connectivefibrous coverings of different expression and character – from dense fibrous to thin, lax, cellulous tissue. Conclusions. Now, there are a lot of vaguenesses regarding the anatomical terminology, but these historical “mistakes” do not influence significantly the practice. And the “reconciliation” of the parties can be reached by the strict observation of the unique anatomic law – Nomina Anatomica.