HUXLEY AND HIS WORK. 777 



sense, or anatomist rather than a systematist of greatly superior 

 excellence. Unquestionably he did much excellent work in systematic 

 zoology, but the direct subject of investigation was perhaps treated 

 from too special a standpoint, and sometimes without an attempt to 

 coordinate it with the results in other fields, or to measure by some 

 given. standard. He was indeed a great artist, but he used his powers 

 chiefly to sketch the outlines of a picture of nature. This was done 

 with the bold and vigorous hand of a master, but his productions were 

 deficient in details and finish and were sometimes imperfect on account 

 of inattention to perspective and perhaps deliberate neglect of the 

 niceties of nomenclature. (And lest I may be misunderstood, let me 

 here explain that by systematic zoology I mean the expression of all 

 the facts of structure in a form to best represent the values of the differ- 

 ences as well as resemblances of all the constituents and parts of the 

 entire organization, from the cells to the perfected organs and the body 

 as a whole.) For example, he separated amphibians from reptiles and 

 combined them with fishes, and yet under the last name comprised the 

 Leptocardians and Marsipobranchs, and to his influence is doubtless 

 due to a large extent the persistence of English (but not American) 

 naturalists in a combination which is elsewhere regarded as contra- 

 dicted by all sound morphological doctrine. 1 The value of the char- 

 acters distinctive of the Ehynchocephalian reptiles and their consequent 

 significance for taxonomy and paleontology were also denied by him. 

 Nevertheless, even his negative position was of use in that it incited 

 investigation. The numerous memoirs on the anatomy and character- 

 istics of various groups of animals, too, were always replete with new 

 facts and the hints Avere almost always sagacious, even if not always in 

 exactly the right direction. 



XI. 



While the contest between the old and new schools of biological 

 philosophy was at its height, the former was almost entirely supported 

 by the religious element, and bitter were the invectives against evolu- 

 tion. The opposition was almost solely based on the ground that the 

 doctrine was in opposition to revealed religion. The naturally com- 

 bative disposition of Huxley was much aroused by this opposition, 

 and the antagonism early engendered was kept aglow during his entire 

 life. Meanwhile it had been discovered by many of the more sagacious 

 and learned clergymen that there was no real antagonism between the 

 scriptural account of creation and evolution, but that the two could be 

 perfectly reconciled. The reconciliation had been effected between 

 Genesis and astronomy and between Genesis and geology, and was 

 continued on the same lines for Genesis and evolution. But Huxley 



ir The great English, morphologists (such, as Balfour and Ray Lankester), Huxley's 

 own successor in the Royal College of Science, Professor Howes, and A. Smith Wood- 

 ward among systematic ichthyologists have recognized the heterogeneity of the old 

 class of fishes. 



