THE HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 587 



benton, the rejected anatomical colleague of Buffon, followed 

 by von Haller, the greatest of anatomical scholars, and John 

 Ellis. Some ten years afterwards the rivals Camper and 

 John Hunter enter almost together. Monro secundus, Wolff, 

 Vicq D'Azyr, Scarpa, Spallanzani, Home, and Goethe form 

 a group a little later, and at the close the exclusive figure of 

 Cuvier dominates the field. It must not be supposed, how- 

 ever, that this formidable list exhausts the more important 

 work of the period. We have here also the beautiful monograph 

 of Lyonet on the larva of the Goat Moth, Stubbs on the Horse, 

 Roesel on Insects and Frogs, Poli on Mollusca, and comparative 

 anatomical works by F. D. Herissant, Albinus, Bonnet, Pallas, 

 Hewson, O. F. Muller, C. F. Ludwig, Cruikshank, Blumenbach, 

 Bonsdorff, and A. M. C. Dumenl. Gottwaldt died in 1700, 

 but his anatomical treatises on the Tortoise and the Beaver 

 were not published until 178 1-2, and important posthumous 

 work by G. J. Duverney appeared in 1761. Towards the close 

 of the century, the graph jumps sharply upwards. This is 

 due particularly to the activity of Cuvier, seconded by Dumenl, 

 Blumenbach, Home, and Spallanzani, as well as the last efforts 

 of Vicq D'Azyr. Rudolphi, the teacher of Johannes Muller, 

 Fischer von Waldheim, Wiedemann, E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and 

 Poli begin to publish at the end of the century. There is thus 

 no lack of energy and ability at the opening of the new century. 

 The end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 coincides so closely 

 with a steep rise in the chart as to suggest the sequence of 

 cause and effect. We must not forget, however, that the rise 

 in the birth-rate at 1770 adds not inconsiderably to the number 

 of prominent naturalists at work early in the nineteenth 

 century, but they would, of course, work under more favour- 

 able conditions in times of peace. In this connection it is 

 interesting to remember that Cuvier was born in 1769, and 

 therefore by 1815 the force of his example was in full operation. 

 If we scrutinise the literature which immediately preceded 

 and made possible the nineteenth-century revival, we find that 

 between 1800 and 181 5 the most able and active comparative 

 anatomists were Cuvier, his pupil J. F. Meckel, Sir Everard 

 Home, and E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, but the energy and skill of 

 Cuvier dwarf the efforts of his contemporaries. Less prolific, 

 but not necessarily the less important, are C. R. W. Wiede- 

 mann, Rudolphi, G. R. Treviranus, A. M. C. Dumeril, Tiede- 



