t, he regrets the continuance of the sagen Boas peti ros as to 
the eae of the human brain, and comments upon the ap- 
ro 
holds very decided opinions, viz., the morphological relations of 
the scapular arch of all vertebrates with the skull, and the homol- 
Safallel pe poaieion, aid: witeli Prof. Owen. , like sate and Flourens, 
regard as simple serial repetitions of each other, the convexity of 
oe — corresponding with the concavity of the elbow, and vice 
ae. John Wood has an interesting paper on human muscular 
variations, in which he shows that many of them are ape 
with normal conditions in the lower animals, but adds a dee 4 
and, we think unwarranted, suggestion that those variat whi 
cannot be so referred m ay be ¢ cri of a ee developmen 
of the ae frame” in time 
rner adds a fourth to his three cases already reported 
by Prof. Wyman, Dr, Giinther and Prof. Agassiz, of male fishes 
e 
Savane some weighty arguments against the sound- 
per 01 the C 
panzee, ‘Prof Mute hrey discusses at some length the signicane 
of the terms Ha " ont “foot” and inclines to think the name 
* Cheiropoda” m re appro riate than Quadrumana. Healso alludes 
to the “ h finction of the he foot and of all the human organs, 
ding that his ite on the subject incline him “rather to search _ a 
for and overrate than to ignore the physical peculiarities of man.” 
2 to in is certain that in Fe saerninete = oe - iology, we 
Ought to insist seers. & w e or teleo Ine 
of organs, and st fustitied in seeking for physical 
