of Edinburgh, Session 1885-86. 
[ 909 
the middle line (fig. 1) indicate the various physiological and morpho- 
logical lines of research. Under the names of the leading types, 
selected as representative, it is the task of a detailed history to fill 
in those of their followers. 
If we suppose the diagram rolled into a cylinder, the meeting of 
the two edges will readily illustrate how, in the study of pro- 
toplasm, morphology and physiology come into ultimate contact. 
Again, if the diagram he folded along the middle perpendicular 
lines, a gradual unfolding from the centre outwards will, as column 
after column is exposed, illustrate the historic evolution of the 
science. The same facts are expressed in another way by the second 
diagram. The five horizontal lines indicate the different levels, along 
which morphological or physiological research has arisen and must 
proceed. Or we may conceive the diagram as representing a double 
series of five shelves, on which the literature of the different planes 
of research is disposed. The two series of classic works already 
Morphology (form)-*— € Buffon ^Physiology (function). 
L 
IN 
Nis 
Organ- 
ism. 
H 
AL 
LE 
R 
C 
u 
VI 
ER 
Organ. 
M 
U 
LL 
ER 
B 
IC 
H 
It 
1 
Tissue. 
1 
B 
IC 
H 
It 
Sc 
H 
w 
A 
N 
N 
1 
Cell. 
| 
V 
IR 
CH 
0 
w 
D. 
UJ 
AR 
DI 
N 
Proto- 
plasm. 
B 
ER 
N 
arJd 
Fig. 2. 
referred to, unite to form literally the biological pentateuch of mor- 
phology and physiology respectively, to one or more of which each 
recent research, however “original,” must, without exception, he 
simply regarded as a commentary, or as an appendix. For, since not 
qualitatively distinct, their originality is simply of a quantitative order. 
Where, however, it may be asked, is the position on such a 
scheme of Darwin and other evolutionists ? To some extent, indeed, 
on all the lines or levels. Their special labours are distinctly 
so classifiable, e.g ., the “ Monograph of Cirripedia,” mainly under 
