of Edinburgh, Session 1885-86. 
907 
nient. Of this non-analytic line of study Haller, though somewhat 
in advance of contemporary research, may he taken as a convenient 
representative.* It is still represented, of course, by many physio- 
logical naturalists, and such recent explanations as that of the origin 
of sex in terms of parental temperament, “ superiority,” &c., may 
he named as convenient instances. 
(b) The progress of anatomical research could not, however, fail to 
show that many vital processes were associated with definite organs, 
and here begins that study of the functions of each organ taken as a 
whole, which formed for so long the sole problem of physiology. 
As a typical representative of this school we may perhaps name 
Johannes Muller. 
(c) Bichat was, however, physiologist as well as morphologist, and 
in the physiological side of his Anatomie Generate function was re- 
ferred below the mechanism of an organ to the fundamental pro- 
perties of its component tissues. Bichat thus not only deepened 
both morphology and physiology by a new analysis, hut showed 
them to coincide in the study of tissue. The plane of contact 
between the two subsciences being demonstrated, we can thus 
understand how Bichat was the first thinker who clearly formulated 
the conception of a united biology. 
(d) With the advent of the cell theory, function, which had been 
referred from organ to tissue, had now to receive a yet deeper 
interpretation in terms of cell-structure. Such a cellular physiology 
was soon suggested by Goodsir, and developed by Virchow and his 
school. 
(e) The interpretation of function in terms of organisation, which 
had thus been attempted at different levels, began even here to 
break down, and as attention was directed to the nature of pro- 
toplasm, physiology began to undergo what Foster well describes as 
a change of front. The physiologist must begin to read the riddle, 
alike of function and structure, in terms of the molecular changes 
(metabolism) within the protoplasm. These are distinguished as 
(a) the constructive, assimilative, synthetic, or “ anabolic ” changes, 
* It must be noted that in the selection of these leaders of physiological 
inquiry, no dogmatic attempt is made to determine the relative claims of 
different pioneers. The need of vividness is sufficiently served by select- 
ing names which must at least be allowed to be those of leading and charac- 
teristic types. 
