PSEFACE TO THE FIPST EDITION. xiii 



brought within those laws of uniformity which shine throughout the other 

 parts of creation. 



Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire followed Cuvier over the same ground. More 

 exclusive than Cuvier, he entirely neglected the differential characters, and 

 allowed himself to be governed by the consideration of resemblances. He 

 especially pursued the discovery of a fixed rule for guidance in the search 

 after these resemblances a difficult task, and a dangerous reef, upon 

 which the sagacity of his illustrious rival was stranded. To be more 

 certain than Cuvier, and the better to grasp his subject, he restricted the 

 scope of his observations, confining himself more particularly to the class of 

 vertebrata in order to solve the enigma whose answer he sought. At last 

 he found it, and made it known to us in those memorable, though abstruse 

 pages, in which the meaning is often obscure and hidden, but which 

 contain, nevertheless, magnificent hymns chanted to the honour of the 

 Creator. The shape and functions of organs, he says, do not offer any 

 stability, only their relations are invariable ; these alone cannot give 

 deceptive indications in the comparison of the vital instruments. He thus 

 founded his great principle of connections, firmly established its value, 

 fortified it by accessory principles, and held it up to the generations to 

 come as a compass, a succourable beacon-light, under whose protection they 

 might proceed to the conquest of analogies with confidence and security. 

 Then was the philosophical sentiment decidedly introduced into the 

 researches in organisation, and anatomy became a veritable science. 



Enthusiastically admiring these two great masters, we glory in be- 

 longing to their school ; it is, therefore, enough to say that the prevailing 

 idea in our work has been inspired by their labours. Thus, in describing 

 the organs in the somewhat numerous species of animals treated of, 

 and noting their differential characters, we have always endeavoured to 

 demonstrate their analogies. 



The hopes that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire entertained for the future of 

 philosophical anatomy have not been entirely realised. Naturalists, it is 

 true, have always cultivated this admirable science ; Lecoq has preserved 

 its traditions at the Lyons Veterinary School, in his simple, lucid, and 

 elevated teaching ; and at Toulouse, an able and learned professor, Lavocat, 

 has courageously hoisted his flag. But everywhere else, and particularly in 

 the Medical Schools, has not anatomy remained essentially monographic 

 and purely surgical ? And many medical men and veterinary surgeons, only 

 looking at the practical side of this science, and full of defiance with 

 respect to speculative theories, will perhaps give us no credit for our efforts 

 in bringing the anatomy of animals into philosophical courses. To these 

 we have nothing to say; if they do not see how much science is developed 

 and becomes comprehensible with such elements: if they cannot under- 

 stand all that is noble and useful in these generalising views ; and if they 

 do not feel elevated sentiments .revolve in their mind in presence of the 

 simplicity of Nature's laws, it is because their thoughts are not in unison 



