254 Dr. Burneti’s Reviews and Abstracts 
of the inconsistency of this theory (and it equally applies to that 
of Gall and Spurzheim) with facts; we will contrast the organ in 
question, as it appeared to us in the recent dissection of a porpoise 
(Delphinus phocena) and of a shark (Carcharias obscurus). 
Both of these animals are predacions, both pursue their prey in 
the water, both are endowed with great rapidity of motion, both 
are capable of readily and suddenly changing their direction, and 
both move by the alternate flexion and extension of the vertebral 
other fish whatever.”—pp, 13, 14. 
No doctrine was ever received more kindly, or treated more 
brain, who has not seen the striking irrelevancy of the whole 
doctrine to facts; we refer here to the pretended organs on the 
brain’s surface being evinced by corresponding prominences on 
the cranium. e allotment of certain portions of the brain 
for the performance of certain classes of mental action, is another 
thing ; but even this is without that comprehensive support which 
could entitle it to a scientific character. 
rom the anatomical description of the grosser parts of the en- 
cephalon, Prof. Wyman proceeds to a consideration of the inti- 
mate anatomical structure of the brain as elucidated by micros- 
copical inquiry. In this subject are involved points of the highest 
physiological import, and about which some of our best observers 
are very far from being agreed. As this is a subject to which the 
writer has paid some special attention of late, and moreover as his 
