302 ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION. 



gate among themselves : at KO\OVVTGU, rj/Aiovot, Si 6/ 



OVK ovcrat aTrXw? TO avrb eZSo9* Kal jap 6-^evovrac /cal <yevva)vrai 



1% d\\t]~\,wv. In another passage 76^09 applies, however, to 

 a group exactly identical with our modern genus Equus : 



eVel e&Tiv ev TI 761/09 KOI CTTL Tot9 e^ovcri ^aiTriv, \o(f)ovpo(,<; tca- 

 \ovjj,evois } oiov 'ITTTTW Kal ova> Kal opel Kal <ytvva) Kal ivvu> Kal rot9 

 ev 'Zvpta Ka\ovfAevai<; rj/j,(,6vot,$. 



Aristotle cannot be said to have proposed any regular 

 classification. He speaks constantly of more or less ex- 

 tensive groups tinder a common appellation, evidently 

 considering them as natural divisions; but he nowhere 

 expresses a conviction that these groups may be arranged 

 methodically, so as to exhibit the natural affinities of 

 animals. Yet he frequently introduces Ms remarks re- 

 specting different animals in such an order and in such 

 connexions as clearly to indicate that he knew their rela- 

 tions. When speaking of Fishes, for instance, he never 

 includes the Selachians. 



After Aristotle, the systematic classification of animals 

 makes no progress for two thousand years, until Linnaeus 

 introduces new distinctions and assigns a more precise 

 meaning to the term class (genus summum), order (genus 

 intermedium), genus (genus proximum), and species, the 

 two first of winch are introduced by him for the first time 

 as distinct groups, under these names, into the system of 

 Zoology. 



SECTION III. 



PERIOD OF LINN^tTS. 



AVhen looking over the "Systema Naturoe" of Linnaeus, 

 taking as the standard of our appreciation even the twelfth 

 edition, which is the last he edited himself, it is hardly 



