A CRITICISM ON PROF. OWEN S THEORY. 551 



copies of this original idea, is tenable enough from the anthropo 

 morphic point of view. But while those who, with Plato, think fit 

 to base their theory of creation upon the analogy of a carpenter 

 designing and making a table, must yield assent to Plato s inference, 

 they are by no means committed to Professor Owen s expansion of 

 it. To say that before creating a vertebrate animal, God must 

 have had the conception of one, does not involve saying that God 

 gratuitously bound himself to make a vertebrate animal out of seg 

 ments all moulded after one pattern. As there is no conceivable 

 advantage in this alleged adhesion to a fundamental pattern as, 

 for the fulfilment of the intended ends, it is not only needless, but 

 often, as Professor Owen argues, less appropriate than some other 

 construction would be (see Nature of Limbs, pp. 39, 40), to sup 

 pose the creative processes thus regulated, is not a little startling. 

 Even those whose conceptions are so anthropomorphic as to think 

 they honour the Creator by calling him &quot; the Great Artificer,&quot; will 

 scarcely ascribe to him a proceeding which, in a human artificer, 

 they would consider a not very worthy exercise of ingenuity. 



But whichever of these alternatives Professor Owen contends 

 for whether the typical vertebra is that more or less crystalline 

 figure which osseous matter ever tends to assume in spite of &quot; the 

 iSea or organizing principle,&quot; or whether the typical vertebra is 

 itself an &quot; iSe a or organizing principle &quot; there is alike implied 

 the belief that the typical vertebra has an abstract existence apart 

 from actual vertebrae. It is a form which, in every endoskeleton, 

 strives to embody itself in matter a form which is potentially 

 present in each vertebra ; which is manifested in each vertebra 

 with more or less clearness ; but which, in consequence of antago 

 nizing forces, is nowhere completely realized. Apart from the 

 philosophy of this hypothesis, let us here examine the evidence 

 which is thought to justify it. 



And first as to the essential constituents of the &quot; ideal typical 

 vertebra.&quot; Exclusive of &quot;diverging appendages &quot; which it &quot;may 

 also support,&quot; &quot; it consists in its typical completeness of the follow 

 ing elements and parts &quot; : A centrum round which the rest are 

 arranged in a somewhat radiate manner; above it two neurapophyses 

 converging as they ascend, and forming with the centrum a trian- 

 guloid space containing the neural axis ; ^neural spine, surmounting 

 the two neurapophyses, and with them completing the neural arch ; 

 below the centrum two hcemapophyses and a hcemal spine, forming a 

 hasmal arch similar to the neural arch above, and enclosing the 

 haemal axis ; two pleurapophyses radiating horizontally from the 

 sides of the centrum ; and two parapophyses diverging from the 

 centrum below the pleurapophyses. &quot; these,&quot; says Professor 

 Owen, &quot; being usually developed from distinct and independent 



