Scientific Review 9. 115 



This is a fundamental point in the new doctrine, and may be 

 thus illustrated. We designate under the name organ, a part of 

 the body serving for the operations and sensations of the animal. 

 The same organ differs in different animals, either by a variation 

 in the respective size, or by the addition of new parts ; but size 

 ought not to be considered in the determination of resemblances, — 

 we must only attend to the addition or suppression of parts. The 

 hyoid bone of man, for example, is composed of five small bones, 

 that of the cat of nine ; are these two parts, designated by a simi- 

 lar term, analogous in both these species ? For an affirmative an- 

 swer to this question, according to the ancient doctrine, it would be 

 sufficient that they performed the same function in both ; but, ac- 

 cording to the doctrine of analogies, a different view is taken of the 

 matter. That part alone of the hyoid of the cat, which corresponds 

 to the five little bones of the hyoid of man, is considered to be ana- 

 logous to it. This doctrine, in short, makes the analogy exist 

 exclusively in the identity of the constituent materials. 



Let us show, without quitting the example, how the theory of 

 analogies may become an instrument of discovery. The naturalist, 

 remarking the deficiency of the hyoid of man to make it complete, 

 will inquire what has become of the little bones which he finds in 

 the cat. He will necessarily seek for them near the defective or- 

 gan; but to find these parts, he will have recourse to another prin- 

 ciple of the new doctrine, to that of connexions, a sort of Ariadne's 

 thread, which will guide him surely in such researches. The ap- 

 plication of this principle will lead him to discover that the parts 

 of the hyoid bone which are wanting in man, are no other than the 

 needle-like prominences to which anatomists have given the name 

 styloid processes. 



Such is M. Geoffroy's exposition of his ingenious doctrine. Still 

 the subject of contention between M. Cuvier and himself, it will 

 shortly be determined by the test of facts. The example of the 

 hyoid bone, has led M. Cuvier into a long discussion on its analo- 

 gies, and the sternum has also served for the basis of many objec- 

 tions ; whilst, on the other hand, M. St. Hilaire has supported his 

 opinions by lengthy elucidations from the organization of fishes. 



In the class of fishes, M. St. Hilaire caught the earliest glimpse 

 of his extended views. Appointed in 1804 to describe the telrao- 

 dons for the great work on Egypt, he found it necessary to deter- 

 mine a very singular part, which gives to these fishes the faculty of 

 changing their usually lengthy form into a spherical ball. He fan- 

 cied that the bone which served for this purpose, corresponded to 

 the coracoid. 



From this apparatus he passed to others, and successively sought 

 to determine the relation of each of the parts of this animal with 

 those of the other vertebrata ; but he was unable to discover the 

 entire coincidence, and was entirely stopped when he came to the 

 operculum. 



This difficulty was insurmountable, and led M. Greoflroy to de- 



