1 883.] The Scope and Provinces of Zoology. 341 
to which the Table is appended. Two secondary sub- 
divisions occurring in the Table of the “ Generelle Morpho- 
logic ” are absent from their corresponding places here, 
while under Anatomy is placed, in brackets, “ Comparative 
Anatomy.” Prof. Haeckel’s second subdivision of Morpho- 
logy is of a kindred nature ; ontogeny is defined as “ history 
of embryo,” a delusion long ago dispelled by Prof. Haeckel 
himself ; metamorphosis (larval) is written instead of 
“ Schadonology ” ; “ Metamorphology,” a term as unsuit- 
able as “ Promorphology,” and occurring in the table in the 
“ Generelle Morphologie,” is here ignored, while “ Anaplas- 
tology,” “ Metaplastology,” and “ Cataplastology ” (defined 
“Gen. Morph.,” bandii., s.22), are likewise excluded ; lastly, 
under Phylogeny are bracketted the three words, — Palaeon- 
tology, Genealogy, and Classification. 
We pass, without reluctance, to “The Crayfish,” to 
analyse the morphological chapters therein. “ The Cray- 
fish ” is, “ in a sense, a house, with a great variet}^ of rooms 
and offices ” (p. 139). “That which architecture, as an art 
conversant with pure form, is to buildings, Morphology, as a 
science conversant with pure form, is to animals and plants ” 
(p. 140). “ The entire body of the animal, when reduced to 
its simplest morphological expression, may be represented 
as a cylinder, closed at each end, except so far as it is per- 
forated by the alimentary apertures.” A metamere is 
described, and remarks made with a view to exposing the 
teleological blush of serial homology (pp. 149, 174). Histo- 
logy is treated, and also embryology; in fine, the animal is 
studied simply as if it were the work of an architect and his 
builder, the analogy being complete. We have cells and 
calcareous salts ; we have the bricks and tiles ; we have the 
organs, so the rooms ; the antimeres, as exhibited in sym- 
metrical houses ; the metameres, as better illustrated by a 
row of houses ; finally, we have the stereometry of organisms 
{vide “ Gen. Morph.,” band i., Buch iv., Tafeln. i., ii.), so 
we have the style and plan of the house. Prof. Huxley 
treats these topics apart from Comparative Morphology. 
This essentially architectural morphology , therefore, may 
appropriately be designated “ TeCtology.” “ Antimero- 
logy ” and “ Metamerology ” (Table, “Gen. Morph.”) link 
Promorphology (stereometry of organisms) to “ Merologie ” 
(study of parts, Bd. i., s. 25 and s. 29), this being an ex- 
tremely valuable word. 
Prof. Haeckel’s elevation of ontogeny to the post of sole 
companion of phylogeny (in theory, though not in practice) 
is paralleled by Prof. Huxley’s esteem for palaeontology, — 
