AuGust 13, 1897. ] 
dissected examples of all the types he 
could obtain and found that such super- 
ficial characters were often misleading, and 
he proceeded to arrange them with refer- 
ence to the preponderance of all characters. 
The structure of the cranium especially 
was analyzed, and the variations and con- 
cordances in the development of various 
bones were tabulated. These characters 
were supplemented by others derived from 
the vertebree, the shoulder girdle, the teeth, 
the tongue and the pholidosis. Familiarity 
with his subject enabled him almost in- 
stinctively to assess the relative values of 
the different characters, and he obtained 
fitting equations which resulted in a system 
which has received the approbation of the 
most competent judges to the present time. 
The extent of Cope’s influence on herpe- 
tology may be to some extent inferred 
from the catalogues of the richest collec- 
tion of reptiles and amphibians in existence 
—the British Museum’s. Descriptive cata- 
logues of both the Anurans and Saurians 
have been published at different times. In 
the early catalogues are adopted the views 
current at the dates of publication—1845 
for the lizards; 1858 for the batrachians. 
New editions were published many years 
later and the systems of Cope were adopted 
with slight modifications. In his catalogue 
of the Batrachia salientia Mr. Boulenger, 
the author, remarked that it appeared 
“undeniable that the principles of classifi- 
cation laid down by Mr. Cope are more in 
accordance with the natural affinities of 
the genera of tailless Batrachians than 
those employed by other authors; this is 
amply proved by all we know of their geo- 
graphical distribution, development and 
physiology.” 
In an article* published in advance of 
his catalogue of the lizards, Boulenger 
states that the old classifications are, ‘on 
*Synopsis of the families of existing Lacertilia, 
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), XIV., 117, 
SCIENCE. 
231 
the whole, as unnatural as can be’ and 
that, “like Cope, whose lizard families I re- 
gard as the most natural hitherto proposed, 
I shall lay greater stress on osteological 
characters and on the structure of the 
tongue.” 
It was a long time, however, before Cope’s 
views became popular. Hven anatomists 
of repute refused to follow him. One* of 
them, for example, admitted that “skeletal 
characters are, indeed, most valuable ones 
in leading us to detect the deepest and tru- 
est affinities of vertebrate animals, but [he 
urged] these affinities once found, it is very 
desirable that zoological classification should 
not, if it can possibly be avoided, repose upon 
them only, but rather on more external and 
more readily ascertainable characters.” 
He, therefore, ventured ‘ to propose a classi- 
fication derived from that of Dr. Gunther.’ 
Cope replied} by a fierce review of the 
work of Dr. Gunther, and concluded with 
the utterance that such views ‘ will only in- 
terfere with the progress of knowledge if 
sincerely held and believed.’ 
But such views were evidently sincerely 
believed and they did retard the progress 
of science. An eminent Russian herpetolo- 
gist objected to the use of anatomical char- 
acters. He especially protested against 
those employed by Boulenger after Cope to 
the grouping of the lizards, and Mr. Boulen- 
ger considered it incumbent on him to 
defend the practice of using such charac- 
ters; { he aptly replied that the use of 
‘purely external characters * * * does 
not meet the requirements of modern sci- 
ence,’ and that classifications are not made 
simply ‘ for the convenience of beginners.’ 
At last, however, the principles of classi- 
fication adopted by Cope have become gen- 
*Mivart in Proc. Zool, Soc., London, 1869, p. 
281. 
+ Cope in Am. Journ. Sci. (3), I., p. 203. 
{ Boulenger in Ann..and Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), XTX.’ 
385, 
