130 NATURAL SCIENCE. FEB., 
making researches of Von Baer and Rathke in embryology ; and it is 
precisely that unwillingness to depart from the philosophical ideas 
of his earlier life that has led to Owen’s temporary eclipse by the 
present generation. 
This marked disregard of embryology as the essential adjunct, 
even if not the key, of comparative anatomy, is all the more surprising, 
since so large a proportion of Owen’s researches on vertebrate animals 
were devoted to the fossil remains of past ages. If any phase of 
biological research can benefit by embryology, that is assuredly 
paleontology; and it is strange to have to record that not only did 
Owen fail to appreciate this fact, but that he absolutely ignored some 
of the most striking memoirs in which an attempt is made to utilise 
modern methods, and discover the successive stages through which 
any particular type of animal has passed during geological time. His 
statements on the succession of genera and species, and their possible 
derivation one from another, were always vague, and capable of more 
than one interpretation; and though there is not much doubt he 
leaned towards the views of Geoffroy St. Hiliare, and those who 
believed in the evolution of life, his work, for the most part, is 
eminently Cuvierian—a laborious description of the facts, with a 
detailed discussion that rarely extends beyond strict comparative 
anatomy and the phenomena of geographical or geological distribu- 
tion. Only on two occasions! does he appear to have attempted any 
broad philosophical deductions, and, even in those cases, it is not 
quite clear how much he admits. He was perfectly well aware that 
the facts of progression noticed by the anti-evolutionist Agassiz among 
fishes were equally conspicuous among the higher vertebrates? ; but 
he contented himself with the bare statement that “the inductive 
demonstration of the nature and mode of operation” of the laws 
governing life would “‘ henceforth be the great aim of the philosophical 
naturalist.” 
Owen, in fact, was Cuvier’s direct successor, and apart from 
his striking hypotheses to which Dr. Mivart has referred,3 it is in 
this character that he has left the deepest impression upon biological 
science. Extending and elaborating comparative anatomy as under- 
stood by Cuvier, Owen concentrated his efforts on utilising the results 
for the interpretation of the fossil remains—even isolated bones and 
teeth—of extinct animals. He never hesitated to deal with the most 
fragmentary evidence,+ having complete faith in the principles 
established by Cuvier; and it is particularly interesting in the light 
of present knowledge to study the long series of successes and 
failures that characterise his work. However unwittingly, Owen may 
1 References to horse in ‘‘ Anat. and Physiol. Vert.,”’ vol. iii., p. 791 (1868), and 
to crocodiles in Quart. Fourn. Geol. Soc., vol. xl., p. 157 (1884). 
2“ Paleontology,” ed. 2, p. 444 (1861). 
3 NATURAL SCIENCE, vol. ii., p. 18. 
4 Cf. Anthvakerpeton crassosteum, Owen, Geol. Mag., vol. ii., p. 6, pls. i., 11. (1865). 
