THE HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 589 



does not show how many periodicals were in existence at a 

 particular time. Many were short-lived, or changed their 

 character, or were absorbed by others of similar aims and 

 wider circulation. Before 1750 the monographic publication 

 was almost the only method, between 1750 and 1800 the 

 corporate serial was taking root, and by 18 10 it had assumed 

 control of the situation. If figs. 1 and 10 be compared it will 

 be seen how impossible the great numerical output between 

 1800 and 1850 would have been but for this radical change 

 in the methods of publication. And if further evidence of 

 the effect of the periodical were necessary, we have only to 

 draw up a list of the authors who have more than ten anatomical 

 works to their credit. Before 1800 only fourteen such can 

 be found, 1 but between 1800 and i860 the number jumps up 

 to 100. Nothing could be more striking or significant than 

 so abrupt a change, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that a 

 comparison of figs. 1 and 10 suggests the method by which it 

 was brought about. The change, however, relates as well to 

 the character as to the number of works issued. The new 

 method is social, it is the consequence of combinations of 

 different interests, and aims at presenting the results, however 

 meagre, of as many workers as possible. Verbosity would 

 have killed it, and, therefore, whilst the number of papers 

 issued is increased, their length is deliberately abbreviated. 

 Consequently the charts, which assign the same value to a 

 short as to a long communication, emphasise unduly the bulk 

 of the output of the nineteenth century, for the work of the 

 preceding period, though powerful in length, is weak in numbers. 



The part played by European countries in founding so- 

 cieties and periodicals dealing with zoological topics may now 

 be briefly referred to. In England the representative character 

 and influence of the Royal Society excludes all other effort 

 until near the end of the eighteenth century— a gap which is 

 unique. Nor does England become really effective before 1 830. 

 On the other hand Germany is the most active of all in the' 

 last half of the eighteenth century, but she fails to add to 

 this advantage until about 1835, when her modern develop- 

 ment may be said to begin. France is quiet until the nine- 

 teenth century, but at 1820 there is a sudden expansion— not, 



1 These are the exceptions that prove the rule, for the majority of the papers of 

 the fourteen authors appeared in the only periodicals then available. 



