centres, I have termed * autogenous elements/ &quot; The remaining 

 elements, which he classes as &quot; exogenous,&quot; because they &quot; shoot 

 out as continuations from some of the preceding elements,&quot; are the 

 diapophyses diverging from the upper part of the centrum as the 

 parapophyses do below, and the zygapophyses which grow out of the 

 distal ends of the neurapophyses and hsemapophyses. 



If, now, these are the constituents of the vertebrate segment hi 

 its typical completeness ;&quot; and if the vertebrate skeleton consists oi 

 a succession of such segments ; we ought to have in these con 

 stituents, representatives of all the elements of the vertebrate 

 skeleton at any rate, all its essential elements. Are we then to 

 conclude that the &quot; diverging appendages,&quot; which Professor Owen 

 regards as rudimental limbs, and from certain of which he considers 

 actual limbs to be developed, are typically less important than some 

 of the above-specified exogenous parts say the zygapophyses ? 



That the meaning of this question may be understood, it will be 

 needful briefly to state Professor Owen s theory of The Nature oj 

 Limbs; and such criticisms as we have to make on it must be in 

 cluded in the parenthesis. In the first place, he aims to show that 

 the scapular and pelvic arches, giving insertion to the fore and hind 

 limbs respectively, are displaced and modified lumnal arches, 

 originally belonging in the one case to the occipital vertebra, and in 

 the other case to some trunk-vertebra not specified. In support of 

 this assumption of displacement, carried in some cases to the extent 

 of twenty-seven vertebrae, Professor Owen cites certain acknow 

 ledged displacements which occur in the human skeleton to the ex 

 tent of half a vertebra a somewhat slender justification. But for 

 proof that such a displacement has taken place in the scapular arch, 

 he chiefly relies on the fact that in fishes, the pectoral fins, which 

 are the hornologues of the fore-limbs, are directly articulated to 

 certain bones at the back of the head, which he alleges are parts 

 of the occipital vertebra. This appeal to the class of fishes is 

 avowedly made on the principle that these lowest of the Vertebmta 

 approach closest to archetypal regularity, and may therefore be 

 expected to show the original relations of the bones more nearly. 

 Simply noting the facts that Professor Owen does not give us airy 

 transitional forms between the alleged normal position of t!e 

 scapular arch in fishes, and its extraordinary displacement in the 

 higher Vertebmta ; and that he makes no reference to the embryonic 

 phases of the higher Vertebrate^ which might be expected to ex 

 hibit the progressive displacement ; we go on to remark that, in 

 the case of the pelvic arch, he abandons his principle of appealing 

 to the lowest vertebrate forms for proof of the typical structure. 

 In fishes, the rudimentary pelvis, widely removed from the spinal 

 column, shows no signs of having belonged to any vertebra ; and 

 nere Professor Owen instances the perennibranchiate JJatrac/iia 02 



