Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume V.djvu/189

 COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 185 without change of color and character ; in winter the fur is finer and thicker than in summer, be- ing intermixed with more downy fibres. Hairs sometimes are so closely approximated as to form horns or solid plates ; the horn on the nose of the rhinoceros is made up of firmly united hairs ; the shields of the pangolins seem to be the product of hairs intimately consolidated, and the latter are seen projecting from the former in various parts of the body. The whis- kers on the nose of carnivorous and rodent an- imals have the bulb projecting far into them, and are freely supplied with vessels and nerves, forming very sensitive organs of touch. In this imperfect sketch of comparative anatomy, it must be evident to the most superficial ob- server that th.ere is a general plan of structure in the animal kingdom, varying in its details, but always pointing to man as the head of s creation, as the most perfect of the inhabitants of the earth: The contemplation of this vast picture of animal life is most exalting and en- nobling to the devout student of nature ; fol- lowing the endless varieties and marvellous adaptations of created types, the mind at last must rest on the infinite wisdom and pow- er and goodness of the supreme Architect of the universe. Those who wish to pursue this vast subject in its details are referred to the writings of Cuvier, John Hunter, Home, Carus, Milller, Meckel, Bell, Oken, Owen, Grant, De Blainville, Saint-Hilaire, Carpenter, Siebold and Stannius, Flourens, Strauss-Durckheim, and the various articles inTodd's " Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology." HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. Though the philoso- phers of Greece had some idea of the internal structure of the animals offered as sacrifices to their gods, it was not until the time of Aris- totle, or the 4th century before the Christian era, that we find any scientific treatise on com- parative anatomy ; the first chapter of his "History of Animals," though very imperfect, and even erroneous, in anatomical details, may be regarded as the first work written on this science. He was an exact observer, a patient collector of facts, and studied successfully many laws of nature not before recognized. After him came Theophrastus and Erasistratus. Ga- len, in the last half of the 2d century A. D., made many dissections of animals, of the an- thropoid monkeys, and it is believed of man himself. During the middle ages the science of comparative anatomy fell into oblivion, from which it did not emerge until the 14th century ; in the 16th and 17th appeared the writings of Berengario, Vesalius, Rondelet, Aldrovandus, Riolan, Harvey, and C. V. Schneider. Up to this time the science had only been studied in its separate details ; the Neapolitan M. Aure- lio Severino, in his Zootomia Democritea, first united the scattered fragments in a general treatise on comparative anatomy in 1 645 ; after him Collins, in England, pursued the subject into the domain of natural history and patholo- gy. The more minute organisms of the inver- tebrates began now to attract attention, and were well studied by Ruysch, Steno, Willis, Malpighi, Swammerdam, and Reaumur. In France, the academy of sciences early occupied itself with this science. In the latter half of the 17th century Perrault, Duverney, and Mery made exact observations on the structure of reptiles and fishes. About this time Needham in England, Redi in Italy, and Leeuwenhoeck in Holland, were pursuing their researches with the microscope on the minute animals, which Raspail and Ehrenberg have since so success- fully illustrated. Up to this period a great mul- titude of scattered facts were brought together by the industrious compilers Blaes and Valen- tini, and in Manget's Bibliotheca, Anatomica. "With Boerhaave, in the early part of the 18th century, the science received a check from which it did not recover for nearly 50 years. He was a skilful botanist, but a poor zoologist, and dogmatically maintained that the study of comparative anatomy could in no way advance the knowledge of the functions of the human organism. Notwithstanding this high authori- ty, the great Haller, Spallanzani, and Ch. Bon- net continued their valuable observations on the general and comparative structure of man and animals. Physicians now had begun to consider this science as quite foreign to the art of medicine, but naturalists had already con- ceived the happy idea of making it the basis of a natural classification in zoology. Buffon was the first to perceive the full importance of the relation of comparative anatomy to natural history, and Daubenton made it the basis of a zoological classification. If Linnasus and his followers had been more familiar with it, they would have made less erroneous divisions of the animal kingdom, especially in the class of worms. Encouraged by Danbenton, Vicq d'A- zyr, famous for his discoveries in myology, in the anatomy of birds, his researches on incu- bation, and his description of the brain, con- ceived a vast plan for the illustration of com- parative anatomy, which was frustrated by his early death, but was nearly realized in the be- ginning of the present century by the great Cuvier in his Le$om cPanatomie comparee. In the last 100 years, among the noted cultivators of this science were Barthez in France; J. Hunter and Everard Home in England ; Pallas, O. F. Mtiller, Merrem, Schneider, Kielmeyer, and Blumenbach in Germany ; Camper in Hol- land ; Scarpa and Poli in Italy. The time of Cuvier marks the opening of a new epoch in comparative anatomy; he applied this science to natural history, physiology, and to the study of fossils. During this epoch have flourished Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, Meckel, Oken, Carus, Panizza, Grant, and Owen, besides a host of writers of monographs on the various classes of the animal kingdom, and on special systems and organs. The first edition of the Lepons appeared abomt the beginning of the present century, and the second was the last work upon which Cuvier labored ; for more than 30