Although knowledge of a subject's historical background is 

 not essential, a good grounding in any field is based on 

 knowledge of its past and some conception of the human con- 

 tribution it represents. The history of comparative anatomy 

 might be likened to a vast and fascinating labyrinth into 

 which one can easily wander and never return. Within the 

 biological sciences, the contributions to this field exceed in 

 bulk and number those of any other, and its bibliography 

 contains some of the earliest writings on biology. Even today, 

 when the peak of production has probably been passed, 

 there is still a large volume of work appearing in various 

 periodicals and reference books. 



The absolute value of comparative morphology's contri- 

 bution to man's present intellectual status is difficult to 

 assess. The history of the natural sciences in general is the 

 history of man's emancipation from controlled and regi- 

 mented thinking or from environmental situations that 

 preclude thought beyond mere survival. Comparative mor- 

 phology, by providing man with a better understanding of 

 the nature and evolution of living things, has given him a 

 sound basis for contemplating the more meaningful questions 

 of existence: man's origin, his place in nature, and perhaps 

 his ultimate fate. In this lies its contribution. 



Since the beginnings of natural history are shrouded in 

 the past, much must be inferred. Certainly, early man was 

 aware of the multiplicity of animals and plants, with which 

 he lived in closer harmony than we do today, and also of 

 their structural complexities. He knew much about the life 

 histories of the more conspicuous organisms, many of which 

 he used for food, and had names for those that figured im- 

 portantly in his life. He also realized that the parts of the 

 body had different functions. The heart, for example, was 

 conceived of as the organ of life and the center of the soul. 

 Man became familiar with the gross aspects of anatomy 

 through hunting, warfare, and daily social life, and thus, 

 by seeing similar gross structures in other animals, he might 

 also have formed some conception of "comparative anat- 

 omy." In this primitive period, the similarity between man 

 and the apes probably did not go unnoticed although grad- 



Introduction: 

 An Historical Sketch 



ually the concept of man as a unique creature, specially 

 endowed, emerged. 



During the early period of the ancients, the accumulation 

 of knowledge began to be recorded in writing, but not in a 

 permanent or indestructible form. Since few people had the 

 leisure or the opportunity to dedicate themselves to learning, 

 the growth of the fund of knowledge was slow and at times 

 the losses exceeded the gains. Growth of an information pool 

 means little if it is revised without reference to fact, simply 

 to conform to current beliefs. Knowledge, like many radio- 

 active substances, has been described as having a "half-life" 

 of about ten years. "Facts" must be continually rediscovered, 

 reviewed, discussed, and critically analyzed if they are to 

 contribute to the working knowledge of succeeding genera- 

 tions. 



The nature of the information to be recorded is also an 

 important factor in the survival and accumulation of knowl- 

 edge. Anatomy, like so many other subjects in natural 

 history, requires illustrations. The art of anatomical drawing 

 was not perfected until the sixteenth century, and develop- 

 ments before that time were extremely crude. A systematic 

 study of anatomy also requires a special vocabulary. This is 

 developed after careful dissection of specimens and studies 

 of accurate, detailed drawings. Any discussion of anatomy, 

 morphology, and evolution must be based on this special 

 vocabulary and the extensive knowledge gained from careful 

 dissection recorded in accurate drawings. 



Although the primary interest of the ancients was in the 

 anatomy of man because of the pertinence of medical 

 practicality, comparative morphology has long been prac- 

 ticed — certainly since the Greek period. It was not, however, 

 sharply defined. A structural scala naturae, the arrangement 

 of organisms from the simplest to the most complex (man), 

 was already in existence by the time of Aristotle, as were 

 concepts of spontaneous generation and a god-directed evo- 

 lution from lower to higher forms. Aristotles' anatomical 

 diagnoses of taxonomic groups involved the comparative 

 method and were as precise as those made several hundred 

 years later. 



With the appearance of Belon's L'Histoire des Oyseaux 

 (1555), in which the skeletons of the bird and man are illus- 



