48 
done, it is a record of all the steps which 
nature has taken in the passage from lower 
to higher types but, alas, egotism, personal 
rivalry, in short every form of human frailty 
is here exhibited; there are the ‘species 
makers,’ who devise species which nature 
knows not of; the ‘species lumpers’ who 
ignore actual distinctions, putting together 
that which nature has put asunder, forget- 
ting that itis a great convenience to have a 
name or symbol for every distinct stage of 
evolution ; finally, there are'the ‘ resurrec- 
tionists’ who, seldom or never examining 
original specimens, pore over old literature 
and revive obsolete and best-to-be-forgotten 
names. 
Paleontology has yet to gain universal 
recognition as a zoological science not only 
on the part of other workers, but of its own 
disciples. Its disciplinary value as a train- 
in exact thinking in evolution is undoubtedly 
superior to that afforded either by embry- 
ology or comparative anatomy. 
Modern morphology or the science of form 
stands on a tripod of evidence. He who 
tries to balance a theory of vertebrate struc- 
ture upon embryology or comparative anat- 
omy alone is like a man trying to keep a 
permanent and comfortable sitting on a two- 
legged stool. It may be inconvenient to go 
from the laboratory so far afield as the rocks 
for one’s evidence, but the stability of every 
theory which affects the hard parts of the 
vertebrates depends upon thetripod,namely, 
upon the comparison with other living types, 
upon the order of development from the em- 
bryo, and upon the direct history or order 
of evolution in past time. We are even 
now sympathetically witnessing the wreck 
of certain favorite doctrines of the greatest 
comparative anatomist of our day, Carl 
Gegenbaur, because his work rests upon com- 
parative anatomy and embryology alone. 
In this regard Huxley was an unrivaled 
model; he not only, so far as was in his 
power, rested his theories upon three kinds 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Vou. XIII. No. 315. 
of evidence, but let those who are hurrying 
through a superficial education for brief 
glory as investigators ponder upon the fol- 
lowing passage, written at the age of 31: 
*©1856-7-8 must still be‘ Lehrjahre ’ to com- 
plete training in principles of Histology, 
Morphology, Physiology, Zoology, and Geol- 
ogy by Monographie Work in each Depart- 
ment. 1860 will then see me well grounded 
and ready for any special pursuits in either 
of these branches.’”’? This passage, in fact 
all of the ‘ Life and Letters,’ constitutes at 
once a brilliant argument against premature 
specialization (Huxley little dreamt of the 
modern fad of extending the elective system 
to the kindergarten) and a solemn injunc- 
tion that he who would build high must be 
patient to lay. his foundations broad and 
deep. 
is there then no distinction in the methods 
of thinking of the paleontologist, embryolo- 
gist or comparative anatomist? I would 
answer a distinction not of kind but of de- 
gree. Of course none of the soft parts are 
preserved in a fossil, the skeleton and teeth 
alone remain; by direct study and com- 
parison with living types these have to be 
clothed with muscles, nerves and blood 
vessels. Weare forced to study the bones 
and teeth with intensified keenness and ex- 
actitude in our search for evidence as to 
how an extinct animal moved and fed, and 
I consider that precision in methods of exact 
description and terminology constitutes one of 
the chief advances in the work of the 
present day. 
In the geological and biological spirit this 
becomes a fascinating field for the construc- 
tive imagination. Todo the best work you 
must live in the period of your research, 
however, remote it may be; marshal the 
extinct animals before you, as the brilliant 
young dramatist, Rostand, marshals Wag- 
ram before the eyes of L’Aiglon; revive the 
physical geography, the temperature, moist- 
ure, vegetation, insect life and see before 
