114 Mr. St. George Mivart on the Use 
lessness of the organic world became with some almost a 
dogma of faith. 
ime, however, has again brought about a change in the 
situation. From the same professorial chair whence Profes- 
sor Owen, in 1849, propagated his views, Professor Huxley, 
in 1869, gave out in turn a quasi-vertebral theory of the skull; 
and the same Professor, in the first number of the ‘ Academy,’ 
has eloquently proclaimed, not only the complete compatibility 
of “ teleology” with “ evolutionism,” but even the utter im- 
potence of the latter to weaken in however small a degree the 
position of the teleologist. 
e impulse given so long ago is yet far from being ex- 
hausted; and the latest manifestation of it is the interesting 
paper on homology by Mr. E. Ray Lankester, which appeared 
in the last number of the ‘ Annals.’ 
In that paper Mr. Lankester proposed to suppress the old 
term “ homology,” which has done such signal service, and to 
substitute for it two others, which are well chosen and will 
probably be useful. 
Before noticing them, however, I must protest, in limine, 
against the notion (which Mr. Lankester seems to favour 
that the acceptance of the theory of evolution, even of the 
special Darwinian form of it, is any bar to the reception 
of that view which represents all organic forms as i 
been created according to certain fixed ideal types. The two 
beliefs, far from being reciprocally exclusive, can and do co- 
ait in perfect harmony in one and the same individual 
mind. 
As to the proposal to abandon the term “ homology,” I, for 
one, should very much regret that dereliction, which would be, 
I think, prejudicial to science. 
mongst the valuable results of Professor Owen’s long 
labours may be mentioned the many happy terms devised by 
him, and his suggestions as to the formation of a convenient 
anatomical nomenclature. 
substitute “homogeny” and “ homoplasy.” The former of 
these refers to parts the resemblances between which are due 
to close genetic relations; the latter includes “all cases of 
close resemblance of form which are not traceable to homo- 
geny, and all details of agreement not homogenous, in struc- 
