584 ON THE THEORY OF THE VERTEBRATE SKULL 



who think that scientific terms should ahvays possess a well-defined 

 and single meaning. 



What, in fact, is the origin of the petrous and mastoid bones ? 

 There is much reason for believing (according to Remak's late obser- 

 vations) that the membranous labyrinth is primarily an involution 

 of the sensory or epidermic layer of the blastoderm ; but however 

 this may be, it is quite certain that the auditory organ is, primarily, 

 altogether independent of the walls of the skull, and that it may be 

 detached without causing any lesion of them, in young embryos. 



It is also quite certain that this membranous labyrinth becomes 

 invested by a coat of cartilage, continuous with the cranial wall ; but 

 I do not know that there is evidence, at present, to enable one to say 

 positively, whether this cartilaginous auditory capsule is formed in- 

 dependently around the labyrinth, and then unites with the cranium ; 

 or whether it is an outgrowth from the cranial walls, which invests 

 and encloses the labyrinth. If the latter be the case, a consistent 

 vertebral theory of the skull must account for all the bones developed 

 out of the auditory capsule ; if the former, it must exclude them all, 

 as parts of an extra-vertebral sensory skeleton. 



Now the bones developed in the capsule are, in front, the petrosal ; 

 behind, the mastoid ; above, the epiotic. The first-named bone is 

 admitted, by the most zealous advocates of the vertebral theory, to 

 be a neurapophysis, in all oviparous Vcrtebrata. Hence they are 

 also bound to admit that, for three centra below and three neural 

 spines bounding the cranial cavity above, there are four pairs of 

 neural arches. More than this, I do not see how it is to be denied 

 that the true mastoid is the morphological equivalent of the petrosal ; 

 and in that case there would be five neurapophyses to three central 

 and three neural spines. Furthermore, it is precisely to these two 

 superfluous elements that the only two clear and obvious haemal 

 arches, the mandibular and hyoid, are attached. 



I confess I do not perceive how it is possible, fairly and consist- 

 ently, to reconcile these facts with any existing theory of the vertebrate 

 composition of the skull, except by drawing ad libitum upon the Deus 

 ex machina of the speculator, — imaginary " confluences," " conna- 

 tions," " irrelative repetitions," and shiftings of position — by whose 

 skilful application it would not be difficult to devise half a dozen 

 very pretty vertebral theories, all equally true, in the course of a 

 summer's day. 



Those who, like myself, are unable to see the propriety and 

 advantage of introducing into science any ideal conception, which is 

 other than the simplest possible generalized expression of observed 



