Intdligence and Miscellaneous Arficles. 38f5 



instance, he discovered that in comparing the head of a foetus of a 

 quadruped with that of a reptile or of an oviparous animal in ge- 

 neral, relations were remarked in the number and the arrangement 

 of the pieces, which were not to be perceived in adult heads, — when 

 he proved that the os gi/adrcifum in birds, is analogous to the tym- 

 panum in the foetus of the Mammiferae, he made discoveries quite 

 real and very important, to which M. Cuvier was the first to render 

 justice in the report which he made on them to the Academy. These 

 are additional traits which he has added to resemblances of different 

 degrees which exist among the composition of different animals ; 

 but he has only added to the old and known bases of zoology, he 

 has in no respect changed them. He has not at all proved either 

 the unity or the identity of this composition, nor indeed any thing 

 that can afford ground for the establishment of a new principle. 



Thus all naturalists have long known that the Cetacea have on 

 the sides of the anus two little bones called the rudiments of the 

 pelvis. There is then here, and it has been known for ages, a 

 slight resemblance of composition; but nothing can lead to the 

 belief that there is unity of composition, since this rudiment of a 

 pelvis supports none of the bones of the lower extremity. 



In one word, if by unity of composition be meant identity, a 

 thing is affirmed contrary to the plainest testimony of the senses. 



If by it be meant 7-esemblance, analogy, a thing is affirmed which 

 is true within certain limits, but which is as old in its principle as 

 zoology itself, and to which the newest discoveries have only added, 

 in certain cases, features more or less important, without altering 

 any thing in its nature. 



Moreover, M. Cuvier (and it is in this especially that he differs 

 from the naturalists whom he combats) is far from regarding this 

 principle, so important and so Jong established, as a single principle ; 

 on the contrary, he sees in it only a principle subordinate to another, 

 much more elevated and much more fruitful — namely, certain con- 

 ditions of existence, of the suitability of parts, of their adaptation for 

 the part tuhi^h the animal is to perform in nature. Such is the true 

 philosophic principle from which the possibility of certain resem- 

 blances may flow, and the impossil)ility of certain others. Such 

 is the rational principle whence that of analogies of plan and of com- 

 position is deduced, and in which, at the same time, it finds limits 

 which it would be vain to attempt to overlook. 



The reality of a certain analogy of composition and of plan be- 

 ing recognised, naturalists have nothing else to do, (and they do in 

 fact nothing else,) but to examine how far this resemblance extends; 

 in what cases and on what points it stops; and if there are beings 

 in which it is reduced to such a trifle that it may be said to be no- 

 thing. It is the especial object of comparative anatomy, which is 

 far from being a modern science, since its first author was Aristotle. 



M. Cuvier announces that, in the new edition of his " Lessons of 

 Comparative Anatomy," which he is j)reparing, excited by a desire to 

 reduce to just bounds what has been vaguely said on this subject, he 

 will consider animals particularly under this point of view, taking care 



to 



