1. M. S. Pembrey, ?Physiology? (Chapter VII) in Evolution in the Light of Modern Knowledge, (London, 1925), 263. Pembrey claimed nevertheless that ?the effects can be traced clearly.?
2. E. Mendelsohn, ?The Biological Sciences in the Nineteenth Century: Some Problems and Sources,? History of Science, 3 (1964), 53.
3. J. Schiller, ?Physiology's Struggle for Independence in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,? History of Science, 7 (1968), 64.
4. J. Schiller, ?Evolution, Physiology, and Finality: Reflections on the Absence of Physiologists from Symposia on Evolution,? The Physiologist, 2 (1959), 50?54. See also J. A. Lindsay, ?Darwinism and Medicine,? The Lancet (Nov. 6, 1909), p. 1329; C. L. Prosser, ?Comparative Physiology in Relation to Evolutionary Theory,? in Evolution After Darwin, I (1960), 569?594, esp. 569, 571; C. S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (London, 1915), pp. 235?236, 236n; J. S. Burdon Sanderson, ?Elementary Problems in Physiology,? Rep. Brit. Assn. Advan. Sci. (1889), p. 604; Presidential Address, ibid. (1893), pp. 13, 28.
5. E. A. Sharpey-Shafer, History of the Physiological Society during Its First Fifty Years, 1876?1926 (Supplement to J. Physiol., Cambridge, 1927), p. 13. See also E. Romanes, The Life and Letters of George John Romanes, 2nd ed. (London, 1896), pp. 50?52. Darwin, who cared much for animals, sympathized with the physiologists in their battle with the antivivisectionists. F. Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (London, 1887) II, 199?210; and F. Darwin and A. C. Seward (eds.), More Letters of Charles Darwin (London, 1903) II, 435?441.