1871.] 165 [Wilder. 



to constitute the main defect in the work of my illustrious preceptor 

 as a complete guide to the future study of intermembral homologies. 1 



The same general criticism is applicable to the admirable series of 

 papers by Dr. Coues, which appeared during the past year. The 

 author follows closely in the footsteps of Wyman, "not blindly but 

 unable not to see the validity of his arguments," 70, 195, and there- 

 fore with a few minor differences, or doubts respecting details, adopts 

 the osseous homologies of "Wyman as the basis for the determination 

 of the "muscular correspondences." In respect to these, although 

 Dr. Coues is led to differ materially upon some points from my own 

 previous conclusions, 45, yet he has generally shown such good rea- 

 sons therefor, that my approval of this part of his work is unqualified, 

 and I am anxious to go over the whole ground anew in the light of 

 his able discussion. In two other respects, however, I am forced to 

 criticise his work. 



In the first place, he has "no acknowledgements to make excepting 

 to three authors," 2 70, 149, and therefore, whatever satisfaction may 

 be derived from having so taken up the subject fresh, he has also lost 

 the benefit of the check which an acquaintance with many and dif- 

 ferent views exerts upon the tendency to the exclusive adoption of 

 any one. 



In the second place, he has, in my opinion, adopted a faulty 

 method from each of his predecessors. He has intentionally fol- 

 lowed Owen, in the use of many different and often ponderous ex- 

 pressions for the same idea in order to avoid monotony, 193, note; 

 whereas, in homologies, as in mathematics, each object and idea 

 should be known by a single term and by that alone; since of all 



1 "It may at first appear that too much stress is laid upon this point, since, as 

 Dr. Coues has suggested to me, the principle is right and the same parts are anti- 

 tropically compared, whatever be the attitude of the membra ; but it must be borne 

 in mind that this matter, so trivial in the eyes of a zealous antitropist like my mor- 

 phological brother, is a stumbling block in the way of the confirmed syntropists 

 who constitute the vast majority of anatomists. They deny the law of symmetry 

 at the outset, on the ground that its chief evidences are the natural antagonistic 

 flexures of the membra which exist in a few quadrupeds only, and not in the 

 earlier stages of development. And in vigorously opposing this unnecessary corol- 

 lary of our theorem, they get into a frame of mind wholly unfit to receive sounder 

 evidence of the theorem itself ; like ' binary composition ' the 'quadrupedal atti- 

 tude' is an uncalled for, though natural amendment, to the measure of antitropy 

 which we support." 



2 Owen, "Wyman and the writer. 



