1. 1 Scientific Aims In recent years, there has been a definite trend
away from the casuistic scientific thinking which has dominated the
scientific world, at least in the field of medicobi- ological research.
Now, in the last decade of this century, scientists are returning to a
conceptual way of thinking that characterized the beginning of this
century, namely organismal thinking. The holistic concept is not a new
one; it was rekindled by a small group of scientists who, in the
previous two decades, have begun to warn against too great an emphasis
being placed on a molecular casuistic approach as the final pursuit to
science (see Duncker 1983). These thinkers were perhaps instrumental in
helping to turn the tide, to instruct and encourage fellow researchers
to extend their findings from the molecular and to the organismal (see
Duncker 1983, 1992a, b; Duncker and Kreite 1987). Having observed the
ceca of many different animals for many years and having described their
morphology at different levels of study -from the macroscopic to the
electron microscopy level - the need to compare and observe these
morphological entities in a quantitiative way became increasingly
imminent. Quantitative methodol- ogy in morphology requires the use of
morphometry, which in the most general terms can be described as the
measurement of the forms of animals. As defined by Reith and Meyhew
(1988), it is quantitative morphology, i. e., the measurement of
structures by any method, including stereology.