Wilder.] 408 [December 20, 



REMARK. 



The delay in the publication of the last part of this paper enables 

 me to offer some general remarks upon it in place of the Glossary of 

 morphological terms, the announcement of which was inserted during 

 publication, but which for various reasons I have concluded to omit. 



The chief of these reasons is a doubt of my ability to do the work 

 satisfactorily at this time; but to this are added the doubt as to the 

 limits of such a glossary, and the hope that the new nomenclature 

 herein proposed may find helpful criticism among my morphological 

 brethren. Yet even were every new term refused acceptance, my 

 own conviction of the urgent need for a reform in our system would 

 be in no way shaken. At present we are trying to do good work 

 with most imperfect instruments ; for we are trying to tell each other 

 about the parts of animals and their relations to each other (these 

 appearing daily more numerous and complex), in the language of 

 popular science; we are, in fact, discussing these matters in a manner 

 nearly as loose and inexact as that in which animals and plants were 

 described prior to the reform begun by Linnseus. 



The various problems which are involved in the general question 

 of intermembral homologies, ai?e rather indicated than discussed; 

 the solution of some requires new information upon facts ; but it 

 seems to me that a more urgent need is some agreement as to the 

 value of different kinds of evidence; together with a logical method 

 in its application. In view of these necessities I venture to suggest 

 the incorporation of systematic instruction upon " logic " and " evi- 

 dence " into all University Courses in Natural History. I am certain 

 that had logical and legal methods of thought been followed, the 

 acceptance of the symmetrical relation of the membra never would 

 have been hindered by a purely popular superstition, like the corres- 

 pondence of thumb and great toe; and I claim to have proved in the 

 foregoing pages that the agreement or disagreement of parts in nu- 

 merical composition has never been held to invalidate any homology 

 based upon relative position or mode of development. Yet even in this 

 section of my paper merely an outline of the evidence and argument 

 is given, and I have to thank my friend Dr. Coues for a forcible am- 

 plification of certain points. I may here refer to the intention formed 

 ten years ago, and expressed at the beginning of this paper, to make 

 the elucidation of intermembral homologies a main object through 

 life, and to offer from time to time papers upon the special problems 



