THE HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 591 



Dufour, Ehrenberg, J. Miiller, J. F. Brandt, and the precocious 

 Forbes and Gervais over 200, and Fischer von Waldheim, 

 G. L. Duvernoy, Blainville, Dutrochet, A. F. Mayer, Flourens, 

 von Baer, O. G. Costa, van der Hoeven, Milne Edwards, I, 

 Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Morren, R. Wagner, Schlegel, Siebold, 

 Burmeister, G. G. Valentin, and Quatrefages over 100. Most 

 of these papers, however, are zoological rather than anatomical, 

 and have little concern with our present purpose. It is worthy 

 of note that the workers of the period, with very few exceptions, 

 and in spite of the fact that many of them attained a ripe 

 age, were publishing almost up to the time of their death. 

 The record of seventy prominent anatomists who began to 

 publish between 181 5 and 1835 reaches the astonishing average 

 of over ninety publications. Another point of interest is the 

 increasing precocity which begins to show itself at this time. 

 Up to about 181 5 it is unusual that work is published before 

 the age of twenty-five, but after this date the reverse is the 

 case. Here again we see the effect of increased facilities for 

 the publication of short papers which became available at this 

 period. A glance at the above lists, however, shows that it 

 is not so much a time of great leadership as of high average 

 effort and ability. Cuvier, E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Dufour, 

 von Baer, Rathke, Milne Edwards, J. Miiller, L. Agassiz, and 

 Owen could not fail to stimulate and direct their contemporaries, 

 but before the advent of evolution disconnected and inde- 

 pendent research was bound to prevail. 



The steep decline after 1835 can only be explained as an 

 admirable example of that rhythm which underlies all the 

 activities of the living world. This primitive abhorrence of 

 the fixed level, which finds its expression in advance or retreat, 

 but never in stability, is just as characteristic of the work of a 

 community as of the internal economy of the individual. It 

 is true that at about 1825 there are signs of another drop in 

 the birth-rate, but this is too late to affect the period in ques- 

 tion. Our records do not extend beyond the year i860, but 

 we believe that the bottom was reached soon after that time, 

 and was followed by another rise. That in its turn gave place 

 to the current depression of which all students of the literature 

 of comparative anatomy have been conscious for several years. 

 To return to the 1835-60 decline, it is evident that it was not 

 due to any disturbance of the facilities for publication, for at 



