130 Prof. Ovvcii on Zoological Names [Mar. 23, 



Linnaeus, to whom mainly is due the discernment of the powerful in- 

 strument of well-defined terms in acquiring a systematic Science of Nature, 

 and to whom we owe our best knowledge of its use, so named the guiding 

 parts of plants and animals, for such arbitrary or special application, in 

 Botany and Zoology: for example, the 'bract,' the 'spath,' the 'sepal,' 

 the ' petal,' are differentiated from the ' leaf,' as things distinct. 



What would be thought of the botanical critic who, quoting the defini- 

 tion of the flowers of Cyperaceous plants, as consisting, for example, of 

 ' glumes,' should meet the statement by a flat contradiction, as, viz., that 

 they were nothing but little bracts,' and who, then, with a show of profounder 

 research should proceed to expound the ' bract ' as being the first step by 

 which the common leaf is changed into a floral organ ? The answer is 

 obvious. But what next might be said, if it were pointed out that the ob- 

 jector had obtained this very notion from the ' Prolepsis Plantarum,' or 

 other homological writings of the author criticised, where such philosophical 

 considerations, foreign to the classificatory work, were the proper aim and 

 objeet? So, with regard to the zoological definitions and characters of 

 Cuvier. Those which I have cited might be met by as flat contradictions : 

 such as that, " The ' hind hands ' of the Quadrumana are nothing but 

 'feet' " ; and the contradictor might then proceed to demonstrate, with 

 much show of original research, the homology of the ' astragalus,' ' calca- 

 neum,' 'cuboides,' 'cuneiform bones,' &c., in order to establish his dis- 

 covery that a hand and foot are all one. 



It is true that if the homological descriptions in the ' Legons d'Aua- 

 tomie Comparee ' had been quoted as well as the zoological definitions from 

 the ' Regne Animal,' the immortal author of the latter work would be shown 

 to have had previous possession of the homological knowledge. Nay more, 

 in the " Cinquieme Leon, Articles VII.-IX. ' Des os du pied'" *, the 

 frame of the hind feet of Man, Ape, Lion, Seal, Elephant, &c. is shown to 

 consist of homologous bones. Nevertheless the great Zootomist, in his 

 labour and character as Zoologist, does not hesitate to define and differ- 

 entiate the ' foot,' the ' hand,' the ' paw,' the ' fin,' and the ' hoof,' re- 

 spectively : nor does he deem the demonstration of the unity underlying 

 the diversity to make the ' man ' an ' elephant ' or a ' seal,' any more than 

 it makes him a ' dog ' or an ' ape ' ! 



It is time that the procedure be exposed and stigmatized which consists 

 in representing the homological knowledge and opinions of the author by 

 his definitions in a purely zoological work, and in suppressing all reference 

 to the descriptions and statements in the anatomical writings of the same 

 author, where his actual knowledge and opinions on the nature and homo- 

 logy of parts are given, and where alone they can be expected to be found. 



My present remarks refer to the published ' Abstract ' of Mr. Flower's 

 paper. What justice he may have done me by other references in the 

 paper itself, I know not, nor does it concern me since the distribution of 

 * Le50ns d'Anat. Comp., torn. i. 1805. 



