REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS. 313 



»^ Hilgendorf, Ucbcr Planorbis multiformis in Steinheimer Stiss- 

 wasserkalk. Monatsbericht des Berliner Akademie aus dem Jahre 

 1866. P. 474, &c. 



^ Waagen, Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus. 

 Beneke's Beitrage, 1869. Vol. 2. 



Zittel, Die Fauna der altern Cephalopoden fiihrenden Tithonbil- 

 dungen. Palaontologische Mittheilungen, 1870. 



Neumayr, Jurastudicn. Jahrbuch der geologischcn Reiclisanstalt, 

 1871. 



L. Wiirtenberger, Neuer Beitrag zum geologischen Beweise der 

 Darwin' schen Theorie, 1873. 



26 Danvin,The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domesti- 

 cation 1868. 



*' L. Oken, Die §eugung, 1S05. Lehrbuch der Naturphiloso- 

 phie, 1 809-1 1, Pt. 3. 



2^ I have borrowed the following account from my essay : *' Wae 

 Goethe ein Darwinianer ?" (Was Goethe a Darwinist?) Gratz, 

 Leuschner and Lubinsky, 1871. 



Also another small work of mine : " Goethe's Verhaltniss zu den 

 erganischen Naturwissenschaften" (Berlin, 1852). To the p^s- 

 :5ages given in the text, which might make Goethe appear as a 

 Darwinist, I may add the following from Eckermann's " Gespriiche 

 mit Goethe" (3 Ed. p. 191). " Thus man has in his skull two 

 empty cavities. The question why ? would not go far, whereas 

 the question how? teaches me that these cavities are remains 

 of the animal skull, which in those inferior organisms exist to 

 a greater degree, and are not entirely lost even in man, notwith- 

 standing his higher elevation." 



^^ A somewhat depreciative opinion of Goethe's importance in 

 this sphere is pronounced by V. Carus in his " Geschichte der 

 Zoologie" (Miinchen, 1872). The reader may compare : " How 

 little, notwithstanding his repeated study of anatomy, he had 

 gained a true insight into the structure of animals, as determined 

 by law, is testified by his Introduction to Comparative Anatomy. 

 He finds no other means of harmonizing the dry details of descrip- 

 tive anatomy, and the morphology which vaguely hovered before 

 him, but by indicating the idea of a primitive type for animals, 

 which he is, however, unable to define or to render in any way 

 palpable by more general indications. His whole idiosyncrasy 



