836 PROGRESS OF SCIENCE IN THE CENTURY. 



not be said of the skull as such. At the same time, 

 Goethe^s theory was a keen-sighted morphological 

 hypothesis, well worthy of being carefully tested. 



We might also refer to Goethe's views on indi- 

 viduality, division of labour, correlation, adaptation, 

 and the general doctrine of evolution ; * but we have 

 probably said enough to show why the poet-naturalist 

 may be ranked among those who laid the foundations 

 of morphology. 



Lamarck was rather an evolutionist than a mor- 

 phologist, but it must be remembered that in 1794 

 he drew with a firm hand the distinction, which 

 Aristotle had hinted at, between vertebrate or back- 

 boned and invertebrate or backboneless animals. 

 Although our knowledge of transitional forms, like 

 Balanoglossus, not to speak of the Tunicates, has 

 lessened the rigidity of Lamarck's line, the distinc- 

 tion is universally recognised as one of great practi- 

 cal convenience. Lamarck also defined a number of 

 groups — Crustacea, Arachnida, and Annelida — 

 which are still regarded as natural divisions, and he 

 may be fairly called one of the founders of the com- 

 parative anatomy of invertebrates. The very antith- 

 esis of Cuvier, he allowed his evolutionary theory to 

 colour his whole work. 



fitienne Goeffroy Saint-Hilaire, author of the re- 

 markable Philosophie Afiatomigue (1818-1823) in 

 which he exaggerated the idea of " unity in organic 

 structure," was another expert comparative anato- 

 mist who was profoundly influenced by the evolution- 

 idea. Meckel, on the other hand, even more illus- 

 trious as an anatomist, was distinctly Cuvierian. 



* See Prof. H. Reichenbach, Goethe und die Biologic 

 Beright Senckenberg Nat. Gesellschaft, Frankfurt, a.m., 

 1899, pp. 124-155. 



