Wilder.] 



166 [April 5, 



the natural sciences, this demands the closest attention, and the 

 absence of all unessential considerations. 



Coues has accepted unquestioned the view of the normal position 

 of the membra, for comparison, which was first proposed by Wyman 

 and adopted by Foltz, Folsom, and myself; this view is based upon 

 the proposition of Wyman, 55,265, that "the knees and elbows in all 

 animals are bent so as to form angles pointing in opposite directions "; 

 if we except the fishes, this generalization is correct, provided that 

 the membra are placed in the position they have with most quadru- 

 peds; but Goodsir, Humphrey and Huxley and Wyman himself have 

 shown that this is not their primary position, and it is quite possible 

 that both Wyman and Coues might have followed Huxley in deny- 

 ing that it is their normal position, had they read his paper. 1 



Finally Dr. Coues has accepted from the writer a terminology of 

 ideas (antitypy, etc.) which was itself based upon the Owenian 

 phraseology, which was in no way expressive of the ideas designated 

 thereby, and which I now propose to discard for a more significant 

 nomenclature derived from the word which begins this section; of 

 which more hereafter. 



I have commented upon Dr. Coues' methods the more freely 

 because, as regards the use of many and lengthy words, and the 

 acceptance of single authors' peculiar views, my own sins have been 

 more and greater than his can ever be. 



Dr. Coues may be glad to know that it is only since reading his 

 papers, and during the careful review of the whole subject in prepa- 

 ration of this paper, that I have been led to modify my own opinion in 

 regard to the position in which the membra are to be compared 

 together, and to adopt the view of Huxley already referred to. If 

 he will join me in this 2 — and still better, if the great anatomist to 

 whose example and advice we both owe so much of our encourage- 

 ment to this kind of work, — will yield his adherence to this new 

 method of comparison, we may be bold enough to hope to close the 

 first century of this controversy by proposing a view embracing 



1 Dr. Coues writes me (Dec. 23, 1871) that he sees no valid objection to the neutral 

 position proposed by Huxley. 



2 Let me here thank my kind preceptor and my other scientific friends for allow- 

 ing me to be the first to express the opinion that a certain memoir, 45, whereof 

 the writer was rather proud, would have been the better for much cutting and 

 pruning in the above mentioned respects, although I have no reason to regret the 

 general views therein advocated. 



