Wilder.] 326 [June 21, 



mentioned ; and our present inquiry is, therefore, what are the rela- 

 tive morphical values of different attributes, different organs, differ- 

 ent systems, different species and stages of development ? 



To fully discuss this question would require many volumes, and I 

 can only attempt at this time to present the conclusions to which I 

 have been led by the material now at my command, and, perhaps, to 

 indicate more definitely than has been done heretofore, the matters 

 which demand especial investigation. For it is clear that some of 

 us upon both sides have been arguing upon false or insufficient prem- 

 ises, and that we have taken some steps upon the " high priori road," 

 which we shall have to retrace in order to reach the truth ; still, I 

 must claim that, as a rule, the Syntropists have, in spite of their num- 

 bers, fallen into the more serious errors, and have disagreed so decid- 

 edly among themselves, as to suggest upon that ground alone that 

 their general view was incorrect ; the Antitropists, on the contrary, 

 have at least kept a great idea always before them, although they 

 may have been too eager and confident, and been led astray by un 

 founded fancies. 



Morphical Values of Characters. 



Admitting then, as an abstract definition, that morphical value is 

 the usefulness of any character in the determination of morphical re- 

 lations, we have still to ascertain the relative morphical value of the 

 various characters already mentioned. So far as I know, the phrase 

 "morphological value" was first employed by Huxley, in 1858 (250, 

 381); "morphological importance" was used by Cleland in 1860 

 (215, 306), and the former phrase several times by Traquair, in 

 1865. 1 



In 1867, Wyman suggests that the osseous system is more reliable 

 in the determination of intermembral homologies than the other sys- 

 tems (55,277), and a like comparison is made by Flower (66,239) in 

 1870; my own convictions of the need of some determination of 

 morphical values, were reached independently, and were expressed 

 in 1866 and 1867 (57 and 58); but, although I am convinced that 

 an approximate estimate of the comparative value of the characters 

 already mentioned might be reached by analogies, and by a careful 

 study of the history of the question, yet there appears to be a more 

 satisfactory method of accomplishing the same end ; namely, by as- 

 certaining the value which these characters have for the determina- 



1 On the Asymmetry of the Pleuronectidse Trans. Linn. Soc, 1865. 



