PALAEONTOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE. 45 



Even yet, however, the necessary and close connection which 

 obtains between palaeontology and geology leads many to the 

 assumption that its relation to morphology is, at best, very 

 remote ; but this assumption is quite unjustified, and proceeds 

 from a confounding of the two quite distinct aspects and offices 

 of palaeontology. One of these offices is to determine the 

 chronological succession of the rocks, and in this morphology 

 is very indirectly concerned ; but the other office is the study 

 of fossils as organisms, and here Huxley's dictum thoroughly 

 applies : "The only difference between a collection of fossils 

 and one of recent animals is that one set has been dead some- 

 what longer than the other." This is a shining example of the 

 "true word spoken in jest." 



The great problems of morphology are the same for all 

 workers in that science ; it is the method of attacking them 

 which differs. If I may be allowed to quote what I have else- 

 where said, I would again call attention to the very instructive 

 character of the analogies which exist between the history, 

 aims, and methods of animal morphology and those of com- 

 parative philology. " In both sciences the attempt is made 

 to trace the development of the modern from the ancient, to 

 demonstrate the common origin of things now widely separated 

 and differing in all apparent characteristics, and to establish 

 the modes in which, and the factors or causes by which, this 

 solution and differentiation have been effected. At the present 

 time morphology is still far behind the science of language 

 with regard to the solution of many of these kindred problems, 

 and can hardly be said to have advanced beyond the stage which 

 called forth Voltaire's famous sneer: " L'e'tymologie est une 

 science ou les voyelles ne font rien et les consonnes fort peu 

 de chose." Of the animal pedigrees, now so frequently pro- 

 pounded, few have any better foundation than the guessing 

 etymologies of the last century, and for exactly the same 

 reason. Just as the old etymologists had no test to distinguish 

 a true derivation from a false one, except a likeness in sound 

 and meaning in the words compared, so the modern morpholo- 

 gist is yet without any sure test of the relationships of animals, 

 except certain likenesses or unlikenesses of structure. How 



