532 



IS donbt the possibility of all sucli interpretucions. The questiou 

 which naturally arises is, whether by proceeding after this fashion, 

 gTOups of bones might not be arranged into endless typical forms. 

 If, when a given element was not in its place, we were at liberty to 

 consider it as suppressed, or connate with some neighbom'ing element^ 

 or removed to some more or less distant position ; — if, on finding a 

 bone in excess, we might consider it, now as part of the dermc- 

 skeleton^ now as part of the splanckno-skeleton, now as transplanted 

 from its typical position, now as resulting from vegetative repetition, 

 and now as a bone teleologicalbj compound (for these last two are 

 intrinsically different, though often used by Professor Owen as 

 equivalents); — if, in other cases, a bone might be regarded as 

 spurious (p. 91), or again as having usurped the place of another ; — 

 if, we say, these various liberties were allowed us, we should not 

 despair of reconciling the facts with various diagrammatic types 

 besides that adopted by Professor Owen. 



.When, in 1851, we attended a course of Professor Owen's lectures 

 on Comparative Osteology, beginning though we did in the attitude 

 of discipleship, our scepticism grew as we hstened, and reached its 

 climax when we came to the skull ; the reduction of which to the 

 vertebrate structure, reminded us very much of the interpretation 

 of prophecy. The dehvery, at the Royal Society, of the Croonian 

 Lecture for 1858, in which Professor Huxley, confirming the state- 

 ments of several German anatomists, has shown that the facts of 

 embryology do not countenance Professor Owen's views respecting 

 the formation of the cranium, has induced us to reconsider the verte- 

 bral theory as a whole. Closer examination of Professor Owen's 

 doctrines, as set forth in his works, has certainly not removed the 

 scepticism generated years ago by his lectures. On the contrary, 

 that scepticism has deepened into disbelief. And we venture to think 

 that the evidence above cited shows this disbelief to be warranted. 



There remains the question — What general views are we to take 

 respecting the vertebrate structure ? If the hyi^othesis of an " ideal 

 typical vertebra" is not justified by the facts, how are we to under- 

 stand that degree of similarity which vertebrae display ? 



We believe the explanation is not far to seek. All that our space ' 

 will here allow, is a brief indication of what seems to us the naturai 

 riew of the matter. 



Professor Owen, in common with other comparative anatomists, 

 regard? i^ne divergences of individual vertebrae from the average 

 form^ as due to adaptive modifications. If here one vertebral ele 

 ment is largely developed, while elsewhere it is small — if now the 

 form, now the position, now the degree of coalescence, of a given 

 part varies ; it is that the local requirements have involved this 

 change. The entire teaching of comparative osteology imphes that 



