4l6 THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGY 



He there mentions three distinct types of homologies: special homology, or 

 agreement between a part or an organ and a part or an organ in another 

 animal; general homology, or the relation between an organ or a series of 

 organs and the general type in conformity with which the animal in ques- 

 tion is constructed; and, finally, the series homology, or what would nowa- 

 days be called metamerk homology — that is, the repetition of certain organs 

 in the same individual, segment for segment. He dilates upon these differ- 

 ent forms of homology, citing numerous examples. "Special" homology in 

 particular is discussed in detail, a uniform nomenclature, on Linnasan lines, 

 being given for homologous bones throughout the whole vertebrate series; 

 many bones that had hitherto been denoted by a prolix character here ac- 

 quire for the first time names of their own, besides which a number of other 

 names are rejected as unsuitable. 



Anyone with any knowledge of modern comparative anatomy must at 

 once realize how important these terms and ideas created by Owen have been 

 to present-day biology. Indeed, the very idea of homology has proved one 

 of the most fertile grounds for comparative anatomy, although its real mean- 

 ing has become somewhat altered in the course of time. And the special 

 applications referred to — the comparison between swimming-bladders and 

 lungs, the derivation of insects' wings from respiratory organs — we find 

 amongst the most frequently quoted arguments on behalf of the modern the- 

 ory of evolution. 



Owen s romanticism 

 Yet Owen himself was by no means a modern biologist in his general con- 

 ception of nature; rather, he stood considerably nearer romantic natural 

 philosophy. He was a great admirer of Oken, whom he extols as being a par- 

 ticularly deep thinker and whose theory of the cranium's being composed of 

 vertebra; he adopted and endeavoured to apply further; also he highly ad- 

 mired GeofFroy Saint-Hilaire, with whom he really has more spiritual affin- 

 ity than he has with Vicq d'Azyr and Cuvier. Like GeofFroy, he speculates 

 upon a common "archetype" for all vertebrates; he reconstructs one and 

 illustrates it in one of his works, and to this archetype are referred the "gen- 

 eral homologies" mentioned above. And he preferred not to recognize the 

 origin of the higher life-forms from the lower and the parallel derivation 

 of the more highly developed organs from the more primitive. He was ir- 

 reconcilably hostile to Darwin's theory in particular; upon its appearance 

 he challenged it anonymously and in quite a heated controversial spirit, 

 which certainly resulted in the exposure of a few weak points, but showed 

 a great lack of understanding of the true value of the theory. Later, however, 

 while maintaining the purely hypothetical character of the origin-of-species 

 theory, he acknowledged the correctness of Lamarck's assertion that only 

 individuals exist and that the term "species" is relative. On account of this 



