SOME OBJECTIONS TO HIS VIEWS. 43 



in a Salzburg periodical in 1831, and adduced by 

 Valentin in his work on Development. That Goodsir's 

 researches were made independently, no one doubts, 

 and the comparatively isolated observation of Arnold 

 in no wise detracts from the larger and more success- 

 ful investigations of the Edinburgh student. Arnold's 

 views rested on so limited a basis that his own country- 

 men had failed to recognise their application. Easchkow 

 and Purkinje differed from Arnold's opinions soon after 

 these were made known in Germany, as to the dental 

 follicles taking their origin from the mucous membrane 

 of the mouth. Goodsir's observations were the most cir- 

 cumstantial and complete ever put before the profession. 

 To claim perfection for Goodsir's work would be un- 

 worthy of the physiologist, as his views on the primor- 

 dial condition of the dental germs may possibly admit 

 of a slight modification ; indeed, objections have 

 been raised by Continental anatomists on this spe- 

 cial ground. After twenty years of general acknow- 

 ledgment of Goodsir's correctness, the superficial and 

 open condition of the dental sacs, and the papillary 

 commencement of the pulps, were questioned by 

 Guillot in the Annates des Sciences Naturelles for 

 1859, and in the following year by Messieurs Robin 

 ;uk1 Magitot in the Journal de la Physiologic. These 

 gentlemen threw some doubts on the mode of Goodsir's 

 dissecting, and attributed some of the free surfaces he 

 lia<l described to the use <>f the needle or brush upon 

 mucous membrane. Kolliker subsequently defended 

 Goodsir's main points, not, however, without an ad- 



