ANATOMICAL SYSTEMS. 329 



indeed, be a great mistake to assume that it is solely 

 owing to the influence of different authors upon one 

 another ; it is, on the contrary, to a very great extent, 

 the result of our better acquaintance with Nature. When 

 investigators at all conversant with the present state of 

 our science must possess nearly the same amount of 

 knowledge, it is self-evident that their views can no 

 longer differ so widely as they did when each was fa- 

 miliar with a part only of the subject. A deeper insight 

 into the animal kingdom must, in the end, lead to the 

 conviction that it is not the task of zoologists to introduce 

 order among animals, but that their highest aim should 

 be simply to read the natural affinities which exist among 

 them, so that the more nearly our knowledge embraces 

 the whole field of investigation, the more closely will our 

 opinions coincide. 



As to the value of the classes adopted by Owen, I may 

 further remark, that recent investigations, of which he 

 might have availed himself, have shown that the Cirri- 

 pedia and his Epizoa are genuine Crustacea, and that the 

 Entozoa can no longer be so widely separated from the 

 Annellata as in his system. With reference to the other 

 classes, I refer the reader to my criticism of older systems, 

 and to the first section of this Chapter. 



It is a great satisfaction to me to find that the views I 



o 



have advocated in the preceding sections, respecting the 

 natural relations of the leading groups of the animal 

 kingdom, coincide so closely with' the classification of 

 that distinguished zoologist, Milne-Edwards, lately pre- 

 sented by him as the expression of his present views of 

 the natural affinities of animals. He is the only original 

 investigator who has recently given Ins unqualified ap- 

 probation to the primary divisions first proposed by 



