1883.] The Scope and Province of Zoology. 339 
subtle forces pervading organisms to be ranked ? to specify a 
few. There are the properties with which the late Mr. 
Darwin’s renowned Pangenesis Gemmules are endowed ; 
there is the “ kind of infection” which prompts a bone to go 
“ out of its way, so to speak, to become cartilaginous before 
being ossified” (“ Balfour,” vol. ii., p. 494), and the ana- 
logous influence by which Professor H. G. Seeley would 
explain the multiplicity of mandibulan ossifications ( vide 
“ History of the Skull,” King’s College (London) Scientific 
Society, 1882) ; finally there is the psyche itself, the psyche 
of “ the philosophy of the philosopher,” according to Dr. 
Mivart, which, as embellished by that philosopher, proves to 
be the agent employed by the Creator, who, making use of 
living organisms as means,” evolves “ new concrete forms” 
by a process so subtle that “ we cannot imagine how they 
are produced the psyche at once the antagonist of natural 
selection, pangenesis, perigenesis, dramatic and fictitious 
sensationalism ; the veritable psyche, which “ there is no ade- 
quate reason for believing” to be other than identical with 
the psyche for whose survival of the dissolution of man's body, 
“ there is good evidence of a philosophical kind.” 
In the “ Evolution of Man,” Table xxix., Prof. Haeckel 
names the central nervous system the psyche ; the dorsal 
marrow, noto -psyche ; the parts of the brain, proto-, deuto-, 
mesor, meta-, and epi-psyche, though, in the text, he names 
the “medulla capitis,” encephalon. “ Physiology” has a no 
less variable meaning than the psyche ; it has an etymolo- 
gical claim to concern itself with all science ; ordinarily it 
is synonymous with the “ Institutes of Medicine” ; according 
to Prof. Huxley (“ Anat. Inv. Animals,” p. 26, and “ Ency. 
Brit.,” 9th ed., article — “Biology”), it embraces oecology, 
which Prof. Semper entitles Universal Physiology , or the 
Physiology of Organisms ; Dr. Mivart finds (“ The Cat,” 
p. 389) that phylogeny “ may, by a remote analogy, be 
termed 4 the physiology of the species ’ ” ; finally, in Prof. 
Haeckel’s table, it includes the physiology of “soul-life” and 
of imagination, while chorology is embraced by the “ Physio- 
logy of Relation. In the table in the “ Generelle Morpho- 
logic,” the physiology of relation (internal) is classed with 
what Prof. Haeckel now terms “ Perilogy,” while the 
physiology of nutrition and generation are classed together. 
In the new table, though Perilogy alone constitutes the 
physiology of relation, the physiology of sustentation and 
generation are still classed together, and only secondarily 
associated with the physiology of the animal functions. Dr. 
Mivart adopts this arrangement (“ The Cat,” p. 386) ; in 
