VERTEBRAL THEORY OF THE SKULL 97 



the development of the theory. In England the theory was 

 championed particularly by Richard Owen. 



It was one thing to assert in a moment of inspiration 

 that the skull was composed of modified vertebrae ; it was 

 quite another to demonstrate the relation of the separate 

 bones of the skull to the supposed vertebrae. Upon this 

 much uncertainty reigned ; there was not even unanimity as 

 to the number of vertebrae to be distinguished. Goethe 

 found six vertebrae in the skull; Spix, and at first Oken, 

 three only, Geoffroy seven ; the accepted orthodox number 

 seems to have been four (Bojanus, Oken, Owen). 



As an example of the method of treatment adopted we 

 may take Oken's matured account of the composition of the 

 cranial vertebrae, as given in the English translation of his 

 Lehrbnch. " To a perfect vertebra," he says, " belong at 

 least five pieces, namely, the body, in front the two ribs, 

 behind the two arches or spinous processes" (p. 370). In the 

 cervical vertebrae the transverse processes represent the ribs. 

 The skull consists of four vertebras, the occipital, the parietal, 

 the frontal and the nasal, or, named after the sense with 

 which each is associated, the auditory, the lingual, the ocular 

 and the olfactory. The " bodies " of these vertebrae are the 

 body of the occipital (basioccipital), the two bodies of the 

 sphenoid (basi- and pre-sphenoid), and the vomer. The 

 transverse processes of each are the condyles of the occipitals 

 (exoccipitals), the alae of the two sphenoids (alisphenoids and 

 orbitosphenoids) and the lateral surfaces of the vomer. The 

 arches or spinous processes are the occipital crest, the 

 parietals, the frontals, and the nasals. 



The cranium is thus composed of four rings of bone, each 

 composed of the typical elements of a vertebra. 



The arbitrary nature of the comparison is obvious enough. 

 As Cuvier pointed out in the posthumous edition of his 

 Lecons, it is only the occipital segment that shows any real 

 analogy with a vertebra an analogy which Cuvier ascribed 

 to similarity of function. He admitted a faint resemblance 

 of the parietal segment to a vertebra : " The body of the 

 sphenoid does indeed look like a repetition of the 

 basioccipital, but having a different function it takes on 

 another form, especially above, by reason of its posterior 



