action, and endeavours to explain the process by which it produces its effects. Then follows the anatomist, who, taking it to pieces, examines it with the utmost thoroughness which scalpel and forceps or microscope allows, with a view to ascertaining whether its structure will support the physiologist’s hypothesis as to its mode of action. This in the vast majority of cases has been the history of scientific progress. The physiologist has preceded the anatomist in drawing inferences as to the manner in which things are done. The anatomist, after a further examination of structure, has either admitted the plausibility of his explanation, or has interposed the objection that the part was incapable of working in the way supposed. This comparison of anatomy and physiology must not be pushed too far. Enough has been said to emphasize the distinction between them. The one treats of form, the other of function. The one looks at structure, the other at action. Anatomy in its limited and logical sense has nothing to do with the uses of a part; its business is to measure it. Physiology has nothing to do with the measurements of parts; its duty is to watch for movement. Every living thing may be contemplated either in its statical or in its dynamical aspect. Physiology looks at it from the latter point of view. Surveying his province, the physiologist asks himself: “Who are my subjects? What am I to find out about them? What methods, in addition to direct observation, may I use to obtain this information?” His oversight embraces all living things. It is no longer reasonable to make a distinction between human and animal physiology, or between the physiology of animals and the physiology of plants. No human being can take all science for his field. If he contents himself with scratching its surface, he will assuredly raise but a meagre crop, and that mostly weeds. But he is far behind the spirit of his age if he declines to sow in his own little patch seeds of thought which have blossomed in other localities, however remote. The man whose purpose in studying physiology is to obtain a knowledge of the working of the healthy human body, in order that he may know how to set right the accidents, perversions, and premature decay to which human flesh is prone, would remain an empiric of the most rigid type did he not apply to the elucidation of his problems all conclusions reached from the study of other organisms which are likely to prove pertinent. There would be no science of human physiology had observation and experiment been limited to Man. There would be no science of medicine, it may be added, had not the mode of working of the human body, and the influence of drugs upon it, been inferred from the results of experiments upon animals—experiments which could never have been made upon men. Blisters, blood-letting, mercury-poisoning, would still be the physician’s remedies for all human ills. “Give the watch a good shaking. It sometimes does good.