VIE. 
Owen. 
(Concluded from page 30.) 
IV.—SIR RICHARD OWEN'S RESEARCHES ON THE VERTEBRATA. 
IR RICHARD OWEN’S contributions to knowledge of the 
vertebrate animals, both living and extinct, are so vast, and 
relate to so many details of anatomy and zoology, that it is impossible 
in a brief notice to do more than survey the broad features of his 
work. He was placed, it is true, amid facilities for research that 
have perhaps not been equalled either before or since; he not only 
benefited by the labours of John Hunter, and had the entire collec- 
tion of the Royal College of Surgeons at his disposal, but for a long 
period was favoured with the almost exclusive right of dissecting the 
various animals dying in the Zoological Gardens. Nevertheless, 
none but an enthusiast gifted with Owen’s great intellect and in- 
domitable perseverance could have taken the full advantage of these 
facilities; and the mass of new facts and detailed observations in 
Comparative Anatomy and Zoology recorded in the Hunterian 
Professor’s publications, exceeds even the work of Cuvier himself. 
His various catalogues of the collections in the Royal College of 
Surgeons, his three volumes on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology 
of Vertebvates, and his numerous memoirs published by the Royal, 
Linnean, and Zoological Societies of London—all must be tested 
to be appreciated ; and we fear there are few naturalists of the newest 
school who refer to these old classics to the extent that they deserve. 
Owen’s detailed memoirs and descriptions, however, require 
laborious attention in reading on account of their nomenclature and 
modes of expression; and there is, perhaps, some reason that those 
now engaged in research should confine their attention to works of 
reference in more familiar language. At the same time, it must be 
remembered that Owen was the pioneer in a concise anatomical 
nomenclature; that many of our most familiar terms of everyday use 
are due to him; and that if the ‘“‘ laws of priority ” are ever enforced 
as regards anatomical terms, his influence on accepted nomenclature 
will become still more conspicuous. It is, indeed, to be regretted 
that Owen could never be induced to follow, at least to some extent, 
the new school of anatomy and zoology that arose with the epoch- 
K 
