584 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



contributors, amongst whom we find Seger, Muralt, Major, 

 Lorenzini, Peyer, Schelhammer and M. B. Valentini. This 

 list does not compare with that of either the London or the 

 Paris Society. Nevertheless, if the Academy followed, rather 

 than gave the lead, it took no inconsiderable part in the sequel, 

 as will be seen if their publications are plotted separately and 

 compared with the general chart. But this also proves, how- 

 ever, that having got up late, they went to bed early, for they 

 were among the first to retire when the general decline began. 

 On the other hand, the French Academy was occupied with 

 comparative anatomy from its foundation in 1666, 1 and the 

 " Company '• included the great figures of Perrault and Du- 

 verney, others only less important being Pecquet, Mery, 

 Charas, Philippe de la Hire, Gayant, and Gouye, with Sebastien 

 Le Clerc as their engraver. It was a tenacious and virile group, 

 the average life of its members working out at seventy-five 

 years, and their publications extending into the early years 

 of the eighteenth century. Of the Amsterdam " College " 

 little is known beyond the two important volumes on com- 

 parative anatomy published by its members in 1667 and 1673. 

 The leading contributors were G. Blasius, the author of a well- 

 known and detailed compilation on the anatomy of animals 

 published in 1681, and Swammerdam. 



The second half of the seventeenth century confirms the 

 conclusion we drew from the earlier literature. The revival 

 began to spread between 1662 and 1664, and it is difficult to 

 produce any striking publications in the period immediately 

 before that time which would explain it. The Royal Society 

 might, and probably did, have a share in it, but the Amsterdam 

 " College " and the French Academy must be described as 

 the results of the movement rather than its cause. T. Bartho- 

 linus, Malpighi, Steno, Redi, Charleton, Velschius, Severing 

 Boyle, Bellini, Willis, and Ruysch were publishing between 

 1657 an d 1665, but with the exception of Severini these workers 

 were not then the famous names they subsequently became, 

 The decline of the revival is still more inexplicable. It com- 

 menced between 1685 and 1687, and continued in spite of the 

 activity of a number of eminent anatomists. Malpighi, Ray, 

 Muralt, Redi, Peyer, Collins, Ruysch, Charas, Grew, Vieussens, 



1 One of us has dealt in some detail with the anatomical work of the French 

 Academy. Cf. Cole, Trans. Liverpool Biol. Soc. 27, 191 3. 



