144: Miscellaneous. 
real or apparent, are succeeded by other periods of rapid transforma- 
tion, during which what was previously only exceptional and abnormal 
becomes the regular state of matters. And, finally, we must not 
forget that to us time is only the succession of phenomena, and 
that, whether these phenomena appear to us to succeed one another 
slowly or precipitately, the result remains the same as regards the 
doctrine of evolution. In either case the principle of the continuity 
of things is in no degree affected.—Comptes Rendus, May 13, 1867, 
pp. 929-933. 
The Theory of the Skeleton. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GENTLEMEN,—I do not imagine that readers of this Magazine will 
have forgotten Mr. Herbert Spencer’s claim to date his views on the 
skeleton from 1858. I wrote to you not to dispute that, or to impugn 
Mr. Spencer’s claim to be a great discoverer, but to vindicate my own 
claim to have honestly and independently thought out, from anato- 
mical and physiological data, the theory of the skeleton which I had 
the honour to submit to your readers. I did not attempt to claim any 
credit, believing the pursuit of truth inconsistent with the pursuit of 
fame, and that fame is not honour when awarded at a man’s measure 
of his deserts, but only when spontaneously conferred by his fellow 
thinkers. Ifthe germ of the view published in my paper prove, as 
it may prove in its present or some other form, an addition to the 
philosophical groundwork of anatomy, Mr. Spencer may be sure that 
he will receive a full share of honour, if his claim is well founded ; 
but till then, all haggling over priorities is waste of good time, 
which neither of us ought to be able or asked to spare from original 
work. 
I have done myself the pleasure to read the review of Prof. Owen’s 
theory of the skeleton, printed 1 in the ‘ British and Foreign Medical 
and Chirurgical Review’ (new ser. vol. xxii.), of which Mr. Spencer 
avows himself the author. And after much logical criticism, in 
which Prof. Owen’s views are roughly handled, the review concludes 
with a page or two, much less logical, in which Mr. Spencer claims 
to have stated his discovery. So far as I can judge, the important 
passages in this statement are these :— 
“The entire teaching of comparative osteology implies that dif- 
ferences in the conditions of the respective vertebree necessitate 
differences in their structures.” ~ 
% * * * * 
“It is impossible to deny that if differences in the mechanical 
functions of the vertebrze involve differences in their forms, then 
community im their mechanical functions must involve community in 
their forms.” 
* * ** ** * 
MC co Mats have a community of function, it follows necessary that 
they will have a certain general resemblance,” 
