452 Baron Cuvier on the Osteology of Reptiles^ 



oides*. I have at least endeavoured, in the prosecution of my 

 labours, to avoid that description of error which is so often 

 engendered by a preconceived theoreticiil opinion. I pretend 

 not to discover a constant and unvarying number of component 

 parts, nor the representations of parts remote from the head: 

 I do not even pretend that the bones of the head must always 

 be absolutely the same in each genus ; — bxit I strive to ascertain 

 the point to which their correspondence reaches, and the 

 limits by which it is bounded. For this purpose I commence 

 with the individual animal of the oviparous class, which (at 

 least as regards the head) presents the most sensible relations 

 to the mammifera, or to some individuals of that class: — this 

 is the Crocodile. I describe what bones it possesses which 

 are analogous to ours : and to establish the conclusion, I con- 

 sult not only their position, but also the nruscles which are at- 

 tached to the part, and the nerves which pass through it, &c. 

 I freely state what are the bones which cannot be brought 

 within the precinct of the analogy : and I do the same thing 

 with respect to the other genera : — 1 indicate where a bone, a 

 foramen, a sixrface, a suture, seems to depart from the rela- 



plete as diose of any other fish. Nevertheless, in this same year (1818) 

 M. Bojamis presents the same idea in the 3cl number of the Isis, without 

 having been acquainted with the memoir of M. de Blainville; and M. Oken 

 bestows upon it his unqualified assent, as a thing, he observes, as certain as 

 it is new. 



In 1815, M. Spix had conceived the idea of determining the analogies 

 of these parts of the opercula to the small bones of the ear; but in 1810 

 he was acutely criticized upon this subject by M. Ulrich, who regarded 

 them as the representatives of the omoplate. This, however, did not pre- 

 vent Mr. Geoffroy in 1818, in his PhihsophieAnafoniique, from arriving, on 

 his part, at an opinion pretty closely allied to that of M. Spix, although he 

 was unacquainted with this author's work. These two authors do not al- 

 wavs arrange these bones in the same manner : the malleus for instance, ac- 

 cordiuf to M. S))ix, is the pre-operculuni ; — according to M. Geoffroy it is 

 the inter-operculum, &c. Lastly, AI. Weber in 1820, in his dissertation De 

 Awe Hominis et Animalium, has advanced another opinion quite new; 

 which is, that the small bones which in certain fishes are attached between- 

 the cranium and air-bladder, are rigorously allied, by their functions, as well 

 ;\s being sometimes found similar in form, to the small bones of the enr in 

 quadrupeds; an opinion which, sustained by new evidences in the Isis of 

 1821, is completely adopted by M. Bojanus in his Parergon. 



* M. Autenrieth in 1800, in the same memoir in which he considers the 

 opercula as a division of the larynx, considers the branchial rays as carti- 

 lages of the ribs, and the osseous branches which carry them he considers 

 as formed by the os hyoides and some parts of the sternum. M. Geoffroy, 

 on his part, in 1807, and without any knowledge of the lahoursof M. Auten- 

 rieth, conceives ideas possessing a very close resemblance to the above, 

 which he has developed more in detail in his Philosophic Anatomifjue, and 

 which constitute the foundation, and afford the starting-point, of his theory 

 of the branchial apparatus, 



lion 



