Zoological Society. 445 



Dr. Melville totally dissented from that author, and with regard to 

 the ' paroccipital,' he stated that Rathke" had proved it by tracing 

 the development of the bones of the skull to be a mere dismember- 

 ment of the petrosal. After eulogising the labours of Midler, Ilathke\ 

 Geoffroy, and other foreign authors, by whom the truths'of that sci- 

 ence — sneered at in this country as ■ Philosophical Anatomy ' — had 

 been discovered and established, Dr. Melville awarded praise to 

 Professor Owen for having first introduced them in a systematic form 

 in an English work, the value of which however was lessened by many 

 grave errors, which it was important to have corrected, and to effect 

 which was the chief object of his present communication. The 

 second part of this communication would be ready for the next 

 Meeting. 



The Chairman proposed a vote of thanks for Dr. Melville's paper 

 on the Ideal Vertebra, and called upon Professor Owen to reply, when 

 the Professor inquired whether Dr. Melville's paper had been re- 

 ceived ; and the Secretary having stated that the paper had not been 

 received, as had been expected before the preparation of the Agenda, 

 Professor Owen remarked that the absence of such a document, 

 vouching for the precise nature and terms of Dr. Melville's present 

 views, and the actual grounds of his objections, rendered him averse 

 to entering upon a refutation of those that had just been urged vivd 

 voce. So far, however, as the author's views were represented by 

 the diagrams exhibited, he thought it due to the Meeting to offer a 

 few brief remarks on these. 



Professor Owen then observed, that if the modification of the ideal 

 vertebra now proposed had originated, as it might seem to those 

 present who were unacquainted with his work * On the Vertebrate 

 Archetype,' from the discovery of new facts by Dr. Melville, of which 

 Professor Owen had not had cognizance when he formed his con- 

 clusions on the nature of the typical vertebra, there might then have 

 been aprirndfacie probability of his idea needing some modification 

 in conformity with such alleged new facts. With the exception, 

 however, of the coexistence in nature of a second haemal arch in- 

 ternal to the costo-sternal arch, he had long been cognizant of the 

 parts called by Dr. Melville ' haemal arches * and ' haemapophyses ' in 

 the cervical and dorsal regions of the species cited. Professor Owen 

 then inquired whether the lizard at the British Museum referred to 

 by Dr. Melville actually exhibited the perforated haemal arch beneath 

 the bodies of the cervical and dorsal vertebrae, as shown in the dia- 

 gram, and Dr. Melville replied that it did not, but explained that the 

 subvertebral processes in the trunk being serially homologous with 

 the perforated haemal arches in the tail, he was justified in intro- 

 ducing such arch along with the costo-sternal arch in the diagram. 



Professor Owen then resumed, that the main question turned upon 

 a difference of interpretation of known facts, and stated that even had 

 the structures adduced by Dr. Melville in support of his views been 

 new, it would not therefore follow that his interpretation of them 

 was the true one. 



All those structures had, however, been described by Professor 



