592 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



no former period were so many societies and journals founded 

 as between 1840 and 1870. Nor was it due to any lack of 

 distinguished example. We have already referred to the 

 large number of well-known naturalists who were at work 

 before and after 1835. In addition to these an equally dis- 

 tinguished list of others whose working career opened after 

 that year may be given. It will be noticed on reference to 

 fig. 1 that there is a steep drop between 1835 and 1847, then a 

 partial recovery up to 1852, after which the decline is con- 

 tinued to i860. It is interesting to note that the Origin of 

 Species was published on November 24, 1859, and must have 

 played a considerable part in the recovery which followed. 

 Between 1835 and 1848 the following began to publish : Charles 

 Darwin (whose first paper was privately printed in 1835), 

 Doyere, Lereboullet, C. E. Blanchard, Hyrtl, Allman, P. J. 

 van Beneden, Loven, Stein, Calori, Garner, C. Vogt, Steenstrup, 

 Troschel, Erdl, Grube, the brothers Goodsir, Wyman, Bidder, 

 Joly, Desor, Kolliker, W. Peters, Gratiolet, C. B. Reichert, 

 Loew, Brucke, J. T. Reinhardt, A. H. Dumeril, E. J. Bonsdorff, 

 Ecker, Will, Hagen, H. Miiller, Robin, Huxley, Frey, Giebel, 

 M. J. Schultze, Sappey, E. O. Schmidt, R. Leuckart, J. N. 

 Czermak, and F. Leydig. Straus-Durckheim published a 

 general treatise on comparative anatomy in 1842, and his 

 important anatomical monograph on the Cat in 1845. With 

 such active and responsible leadership in the field, the failure 

 of anatomy in the nineteenth century is difficult to believe, 

 much more to explain. Bound up with it, and perhaps in a 

 large measure explaining it, is the rise of histology and embry- 

 ology subsequent to the enunciation of the Cell Theory in 

 1838-9. It is by no means improbable that the energies of 

 many anatomists were thus diverted into histological channels. 

 After 1848 we enter the times of Lacaze-Duthiers, Victor 

 Carus, Virchow, Mendel, Pasteur, W. K. Parker, Gegenbaur, 

 Kupffer, Claparede, W. His, Weismann, and Claus, a con- 

 sideration of whose labours must be left for another occasion. 

 Our next task is to dissect fig. 1 and to detach from it 

 and plot separately the records of individual countries (cf. 

 figs. 2, 3, and 4). Before 1650 Italy is the country that figures 

 most prominently, but as against this she is the only nation 

 that does not participate in the seventeenth-century revival, 

 her course being undeflected by that upheaval. France and 



