234 EARLY STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 





disposed as not to interfere with the movements of th 

 head, neck, or jaws. It was impossible for M^ry to 

 trace the origin of the bony supports of the woodpecker's 

 tongue, but in our evolutionary age no naturalist can 

 fail to remark that they are an extreme modification of 

 one part of the gill-bearing skeleton of a fish.^ 



1 



The Frog 



M^ry (1684) describes the skin and tongue of the 

 frog. He remarks the large subcutaneous cavities and 

 the slight connection of the skin with the underlying 

 muscles. 



The form and position of the frog's tongue ^ lead M^ry 

 to the conclusion that it is darted out of the mouth for 

 the capture of prey. He took little pains to verify his 

 supposition, observing only a single frog, and not ven- 

 turing to put forth his explanation as a positive fact. 



Mollusca 



Mytilus and Anodon were both favourite studies about 

 this time. Van Heide {supra, p. 213) had already 

 described Mytilus, and Swammerdam^ had made notes 

 on Anodon, but these early attempts left plenty of room 

 for more elaborate studies. Poupart, M^ry and E^aumur 

 each added something to what was previously known. 



Poupart (1706) explains the action of the ligament 

 and adductors in opening and closing the bivalve shell. 

 He describes the heart of Anodon, but finds neither 



1 Readers who cannot examine Mery's figure of the woodpecker's tongue 

 will get a notion of the parts from Owen's Comp. Anat. of Vertebrates, Vol. II, 

 pp. 58, 152, and figs. 33, 77. See also Newton's Dictionary of Birds, articles 

 Hyoid, Tongue and Woodpecker. 



2 The peculiar attachment is remarked by Aristotle {Hist. Anim., IV, 9), 

 who wrongly explains that the tongue is in the frog a vocal organ. 



^ Biblia Natur<E, p. 189. 



