584 MORPHOLOaiOAL METHOD AND RECENT PROGRESS IN ZOOLOGY. 



But let US lirj^t digress, in order to be clear as to the meaning oi' this 

 phrase. 



We do not expect the public to be accurate in their usage of scien- 

 titic terms; but it is to mo an astounding fact that among traincnl 

 scientilic experts, devotees to branches of science other than our own, 

 there exists a gi'oss misunderstanding as to the limitations of our 

 departments. I quote from an official report in alluding to "com- 

 parative anatomists, or biologists, as they call thiMusehes." and 1 l)ut 

 cite the words of an eminent scientitic friend in referring to biology 

 and l)otany as coequal. In endeavoring to get rid of this prevailing- 

 error, let it be once more said that the term "biology " was introduced 

 at the beginning of the nineteenth century ])y Treviranus and Lamarck, 

 and that in its usage it has come to signify two totally distinct things 

 as employed by our continental contemporaries and ourselves. By 

 " biologic '' they understand the study of the organism in relation to 

 its environment. We, following Huxley, include in our term l)iology 

 the study of all phenomena manifested ly living matter; botany and 

 zoology; and by morphology we zoologists mean the study of struc- 

 ture in all its forms, of anatomy, histology, and development, with 

 paleontology — of all, that is, which can be preferably studied in the 

 dead state — as distinct f rom ph\\siology, the study of the living in action. 

 Comparative morphology, the study of likeness and unlikeness, is the 

 basis of our w^orking classifications, and it is to the consideration of 

 the morphological method and the more salient of its recent results that 

 I would now proceed, in so far as it may be said to have marked prog- 

 ress and given precision to our ideas within the last eight and twent}' 

 years. I would deal in the main with facts, with theories only where 

 self-evident, ignoring that type of generalization to which the exclu- 

 sive study of embryology has lent itself, which characterizes, ]>ut does 

 not grace, a vast portion of our recent zoological literature. 



To the earnest student of zoology intent on current advance, the 

 mental image of the interrelationships of the greater groups of aniiual 

 forms is ever changing — kaliMdoscopically it may be — but with dimin- 

 ishing etfect in proportion as our knowledge Ix'comes the more precise. 



Returning now to American paleontology, we may at once continue 

 our theme. In this vast field expedition after expedition has I'eturned 

 with material rich and plentiful. And while l)v study of it oui' knowl- 

 edge of cNcry li\'ing manunalian order, to say the least, has been 

 extended, and in some cases nnolutionized, we ha\e come to r(\gard 

 the eai'ly TcM'tiary period as the heyday of the mannnals in the sense 

 that the present epoch is that of the smaller birds. No wonder, then, 

 that there should have ])een discovered group after group which has 

 become extinct, or evidence that in mattcM-s sucii as tooth sti'ucture 

 there is reason to t)elieve that types identical with those of to-day 

 have been ])i-(n'i()usly cxolved. l»iit to disappear. To contemplate the 



