26 CERTAIN EVIDEXCE OF 



Yirchow lias no suspicion even of all these im- 

 measurable strides in morphology, for this department 

 always lay out of his ken. His great reforms in 

 pathology were founded in the province of physiology, 

 and more especially in cellular physiology. But within 

 the last twenty years these two main branches of 

 biological inquiry have grown more and more apart. 

 The great Johannes Miiller was the last biologist who 

 was able to keep these departments of organic inquiry 

 together, and who won equally immortal honours in 

 both divisions of the subject. After Miiller's death in 

 1858 they fell asunder. Physiology, as the science 

 especially of the functions or living activity of the 

 organism, addressed itself more and more to exact and 

 experimental methods : morphology, on the contrary, as 

 the science of the forms and structure of animals anl 

 plants, could naturally make but very small use of 

 this method ; it must take refuge more and more in 

 the history of evolution, and so constitute an historical 

 natural science. It was on this very historical and 

 genetic method of morphology, in contradistinction to 

 the exact and experimental method of physiology, that 

 I based my Munich address ; and if Yirchow in his 

 answer had really and thoroughly refuted this position, 

 instead of fighting with mere phrases and denuncia- 

 tions, this radical opposition would have been well 

 worthy of the fullest discussion. At the same time 



