42 Mr. H. G. Seeley ou the Orlyin 



added segments would comprise both hard and soft parts. In 

 the absence of evidence, I can only throw out this idea as com- 

 pleting a conception of the skeleton as a whole. It explains 

 the origin of limbs simply as a modification of pre-existing 

 structures, without calling any new part into existence ; it 

 exj)lains the harmonious segmentation of fore and hind limbs, 

 and the increase in number of bones in the successive distal 

 segments (as well as the primitive separation of the arches 

 from the vertebrfe), whicli are the fundamental points of 

 structure in a limb. And no idea of epigenesis from the arches, 

 as suggested by Professor Owen, could justify either one 

 condition or the other. The only other obvious origin for the 

 limbs is by potential growth repeating the structure of the 

 jaws with their segments upon each of the arches, first on the 

 pectoral and afterwards on the pelvic arch, which is simple 

 and so far a preferable view. And if the limbs were regarded 

 as potential jaws, the fact that there are thus two modified 

 appendages to the body may explain why the three segments 

 of the brain-case have only one functionally developed haemal 

 arch, the other two, by potential growth, being removed to 

 the pectoral and pelvic arches. 



This conception of the skeleton as originating in a single 

 ossification, and attaining all its complexity by growth in a 

 definite direction, which is sustained by laws coextensive with 

 the universe, and modified in the limbs by the circumstances 

 of existence, has a unity of plan, and gives a reason for every 

 variation which it displays. And if we believe that animals 

 have been changed in form and stature by the continuous 

 operation of those laws of energy which, by changing the 

 minutiae of every thing that cognizance extends to, preserves 

 for them uniformity, order, and progress, then such small va- 

 riations from this common plan as give the distinctive marks 

 to each group of animals are themselves but an evidence of the 

 larger range of those laws which give the animal its unity and 

 one harmonious government with all things. Because this 

 unity is incontestable, I believe in this change as a condition of 

 its stability ; but whether it is named creation or whether it is 

 named evolution, no name can extinguish the unbounded 

 harmony of the relations which it exhibits, or the unvarying- 

 order in the changes to whicli names are but paths, or can 

 part a knowledge of the universe in its government from an 

 unutterable and reverent confidence. For to me it indicates, 

 beyond laws and their consequences, what, judged by human 

 standards, is Intelligence, of which laws in their working are 

 manifestations. If, then, an attempt is made to explain the 

 plans of animal life, it is in faith, born of science, that they 



