112 



in his Lectures on Comparative Osteology, given in the Theatre of 

 the College. 



What those results are, may now be studied in his ' Report on 

 the Homological Relations of the Skeleton,' submitted to the British 

 Association at Southampton in 1S46, in his 'Lectures on the 

 Vertebrate Animals/ 1S46, and in his vrorks entitled 'On the 

 Archetype and Homologies of the ^'ertebrate Skeleton,' 1848, and 

 ' On the Nature of Limbs,' in 1849. 



It does not become me, if even time permitted, to enter upon an 

 analysis of these M"orks. I believe them to be well known to all my 

 anatomical and physiological hearers, and that the doctrines they 

 contain, new rather than revived — new at least, in the best sense, as 

 being the results of strict induction, — have been generally received. 



In the comprehensive ' Principles of Physiology, General and 

 Compar?.tive,' by Dr. Carpenter, the first systematic work on the 

 subject which has appeared in our language since the promulgation 

 of Professor Owen's views, that author adopts the philosophy of the 

 skeleton therein set forth, borrows the illustrations of the Vertebrate 

 Archetype, and characterizes the works from which he quotes as 

 " examples of that rare combination of logical appreciation of facts, 

 with originality in the conception of ideas, which distinguishes the 

 true philosopher from the rash speculator on the one hand, and from 

 the mere plodding observer on the other." 



Sir Charles Lyell, in his last ' Anniversary Address ' to the Geolo- 

 gical Society, speaks of the same works as being " distinguished by 

 grand and comprehensive views in regard to the relations of different 

 parts of the vertebrate creation to each other." 



Dr. Carus, in the attempt to follow out the .homologies of the 

 muscles on the principles laid dovrn by Professor Owen, in his ' Lec- 

 tures on the ^'ertebrate Animals ' for the application of his philo- 

 sophy to that system, acknowledges it as "'indicating the only true 

 way to the comprehension of a scientific m^'ology." 



The great aim of Professor Owen's works on Homological Anatomy, 

 appears to be to put an end to the old controversy so long main- 

 tained, on the assumption that a special adaptation of parts was 

 incompatible with a common type of construction. Having, after 

 long pains-taking researches, arrived at a clear conception of the 

 archetypal plan of the vertebrate structures, he associates that idea 

 with as clear a recognition of the teleological signification of the 

 gi-eat principle as our finite capacities are able to attain to. "For it 

 is certain," writes Professor Owen, " that in instances where the ana- 

 logy of a machine fails to explain the structure of an organ, such 

 structure does not exist in vain, if its true comprehension lead 

 rational and responsible beings to a better conception of their own 

 origin and Creator." Thus, far from giving support to Transmuta- 

 tional or Pantheistic notions, the conclusions of the Homologist 

 beins: based on a rigorous deduction from carefully obseiwed facts, 

 furnish new arguments in support of the highest truths. 



Our allotted time has prevented me from entering, to any extent, 



