582 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



Harvey in 1628 exploited the new weapon, and achieved a 

 startling and brilliant result, but it was thirty years before 

 the significance of this lead was grasped and applied. Yet 

 publishers were not wanting, and books enjoyed for the time 

 a wide if sluggish circulation. What was deficient was the 

 critical and expansive faculty of a younger generation. We 

 are thus at the outset compelled to doubt whether the early 

 development of anatomy is not affected by influences other 

 than the writings of its most distinguished exponents. Or 

 perhaps it may be, as Prof. Miall believes, that " nothing less 

 than the harmonious development of every side of biology 

 could really suffice, but biologists were too few and too ill- 

 instructed for so great a task." We must not hastily assume, 

 however, that a great piece of scientific research must inevit- 

 ably produce an immediate effect. In our own time the 

 Mendelian doctrine lay forgotten for thirty-five years, and was 

 only revived when a vague and pervading interest in genetics, 

 not due to Mendel, resulted in a scrutiny of the literature 

 and the discovery of his work. 



The next fifty years, 1 650-1 700, are characterised by 

 marked interest in anatomical research. It reached its maxi- 

 mum at about 1683, but by the end of the century a considerable 

 decline had set in which was to continue for the next fifty years. 

 Not until a hundred and twenty years later was so much 

 activity again displayed. The discontinuity of the period 

 before 1650 no longer obtains, and we have to record instead 

 an unbroken succession of well-known workers. According 

 to the chart (fig. 1) the revival had set in before 1655, but 

 the real dividing line is obviously at 1650. In fact, both as 

 regards the bulk and regularity of the output, anatomical 

 publication may be said to begin at the latter date. An 

 examination of the birth-rate of outstanding anatomists 

 supplies the explanation. We have already stated that 

 following the high birth-rate at the beginning of the sixteenth 

 century, there was a decline which lasted until the opening of 

 the seventeenth century. The increased rate then initiated 

 held until 1650, when it dropped again. Between 1600 and 

 1650, fifty-five prominent anatomists were born, whilst the 

 next fifty years produced but thirty-one. We expect, there- 

 fore, that between 1650 and 1700 the effect of the increased 

 rate will be most apparent, and similarly that the next fifty 



