St. Hilaire’s Anatomical Philosophy. 225 
one form to another in the same organs by insensible gradations ; 
—bold conjectures, which, confirmed by a sufficient number of 
observations, open to the human mind a most extended career. 
It is from this elevated point that M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire has 
descended to new osteological researches. The simple ‘compari- 
son of bones with the view of determining their resemblance in 
respect of form and attributes, was not, however, alone sufficient 
to conduct him into the vast career upon which he has entered. 
Without reasoning he could have ventured but a few steps ; and 
it was necessary that he should make a survey of the whole field 
of science. What resemblance, for example, couid be discovered 
by the mere comparison of forms and relations between the great- 
est part of those pieces which compose the skeleton. of fishes and 
those which constitute that of mammiferous animals ? Certainly 
none.— Have not also many of these pieces received the same 
names ; so that vertebral animals which might in one respect be 
supposed to be formed upon the same model, are in another 
constituted of parts essentially different ? 
Professor Geoffroy supposes, with good reason, that this contra- 
diction originates in the influence of human anatomy on compa- 
rative anatomy. The study of our species being of all studies 
the most important, the anatomy of man was first known, and. 
all other anatomical researches became subordinate to it : it be- 
came thereby a-sort of type, to which the organization of all 
other animals was compared, in order to characterize and name 
their different parts—for this comparison was one which related 
principally to forms. Such a dependence, necessary at first for 
preventing the anatomist from losing himself in the immense de- 
tails with which he was surrounded, is no longer necessary now 
‘that these details are classed methodically, and every system of 
organization can be examined in a manner altogether indepen 
dent of any other. 
This just and fertile idea left him at liberty to take for the type 
of each organ that in which the development had arrived at a 
fixed point, and to make it thus the true ideal of organization. 
M. Geoffroy has chosen a medium term which constitutes for him 
a normal state, beyond or within which there is either excess or 
privation. As this mean term, however, can only be arbitrarily 
fixed, and as each organ may be regarded as perfect when it has 
accomplished its end, we are of opinion that the point of greatest 
development ought to be a point of comparison somewhat bet- 
ter established, and which would lead to relations more extended, 
Let this however be as it may, these ideas have led M. Geoffro 
not only to trace resemblance in identity of forms, and of the re- 
lations of bones to one another, but further, and especially in the 
identity of their relations with other systems of organs. 
Vol. 53, No. 251. March 1819, P Considering 
