144 Miscellaneous. 



real or apparent, are succeeded by other periods of rapid transforma- 

 tion, during which what was previously only exceptional and abnormal 

 becomes the regular state of matters. And, finally, we must not 

 forget that to us time is only the succession of phenomena, and 

 that, whether these phenomena appear to us to succeed one another 

 slowly or precipitately, the result remains the same as regards the 

 doctrine of evolution. In either case the principle of the continuity 

 of things is in no degree affected. — Comptes Rendas, May V6, 1867, 

 pp. 929-933. 



The Theory of the Skeleton. 



To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 



Gentlemen, — I do not imagine that readers of this Magazine will 

 have forgotten Mr. Herbert Spencer's claim to date his views on the 

 skeleton from 1858. I wrote to you not to dispute that, or to impugn 

 Mr. Spencer's claim to be a great discoverer, but to vindicate my own 

 claim to have honestly and independently thought out, from anato- 

 mical and physiological data, the theory of the skeleton which I had 

 the honour to submit to your readers. I did not attempt to claim any 

 credit, believing the pursuit of truth inconsistent with the pursuit of 

 fame, and that fame is not honour when awarded at a man's measure 

 of his deserts, but only when spontaneously conferred by his fellow 

 thinkers. If the germ of the view published in my paper prove, as 

 it may prove in its present or some other form, an addition to the 

 philosophical groundwork of anatomy, INIr. Spencer maybe sure that 

 he will receive a full share of honour, if his claim is well founded ; 

 but till then, all haggling over priorities is waste of good time, 

 which neither of us ought to be able or asked to spare from orighial 

 work. 



I have done myself the pleasure to read the review of Prof. Owen's 

 theory of the skeleton, printed in the ' British and Foreign Medical 

 and Chirurgical Review' (new ser. vol. xxii.), of which Mr. Spencer 

 avows himself the author. And after much logical criticism, in 

 which Prof. Owen's views are roughly handled, the review concludes 

 with a page or two, much less logical, in which Mr. Spencer claims 

 to have stated his discovery. So far as I can judge, the important 

 passages in this statement are these : — 



"The entire teaching of compai'ative osteology implies that dif- 

 ferences in the conditions of the respective vertebrae necessitate 



differences in their structures." 



***** 



" It is impossible to deny that if differences in the mechanical 

 functions of the vertebrae involve differences in their forms, then 

 community in their mechanical functions must involve community in 



their forms." 



* * * * * . 



" have a community of function, it follows necessarily that 



they will have a certain general resemblance." 



