24 ANTICIPA TION AND INTERPRE TA TION OF NA TURE. 



animals ; then the true ideas of individual develop- 

 ment from the egg, or Embryology, connected with 

 which many fallacies were current. Finally, Natu- 

 ral Environment began to be studied, or the rela- 

 tion of animals and plants to each other and to 

 the surface of the globe, in connection with Dis- 

 tribution. In short, Evolution needed materials for 

 induction. Unwilling Nature had to slowly yield 

 up her secrets, and Evolution could not be con- 

 ceived in its phyletic sense until all the knowledge 

 embraced in Phylogeny had been more or less 

 fully attained. 



Let us first look at Structure. Anatomy had 

 its infancy among the Greeks, and dissection was 

 rudely practised. Aristotle was descended from a 

 long race of physicians, yet his treatise on the 

 structure of man is believed to show that he did 

 not practise dissection. Scientific anatomy dates 

 back to Galen, while modern anatomy began with 

 the school of the University of Padua, where the 

 human body was first fully dissected. In structure 

 Aristotle observed the law of Analogy, as, for exam- 

 ple, in his comparison of the functions of the fore 

 and hind limbs. But the principle of Homology, 

 or the fundamental likeness of type structure 

 between the fore and hind limbs, was first pointed 

 out by Vicq d'Azyr in 1805. Now Analogy is the 

 Will-o'-the-wisp of Evolution ; it is always leading 

 us astray, as it did St. Hilaire in the third period, 

 for functionally similar forms and forms with an 



