PROGKESS OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY. 415 



are not so, wanting the front teeth, in the upper jaw. Some have 

 neither front teeth nor horns, as the camel ; some have tusks,' as the 

 boar, some have not.' Some have serrated 7 teeth, as the lion, the pan- 

 ther, the dog ; some have the teeth unvaried, 8 as the horse and the 

 ox ; for the animals which vary their cutting-teeth have all serrated 

 teeth. No animal has both tusks and horns ; nor has any animal with 

 serrated teeth either of those weapons. The greater part have the 

 front teeth cutting, and those within broad." 



These passages undoubtedly contain most of the differences on which 

 the asserted Aristotelian classification rests ; but the classification is 

 formed by using the characters drawn from the teeth, in order to sub 

 divide those taken from the feet ; whereas in Aristotle these two sets 

 of characters stand side by side, along with dozens of others ; any 

 selection of which, employed according to any arbitrary method of 

 subordination, might with equal justice be called Aristotle's system. 



Why, for instance, in order to form subdivisions of animals, should 

 we not go on with Aristotle's continuation of the second of the above 

 quoted passages, instead of capriciously leaping to the third ? "Of 

 these some have horns, some have none . . . Some have a fetlock- 

 joint," some have none ... Of those which have horns, some have 

 them solid throughout, as the stag ; others, for the most part, hollow 

 . . . Some cast their horns, some do not." If it be replied, that we 

 could not, by means of such characters, form a tenable zoological sys- 

 tem ; we again ask by what right we assume Aristotle to have made 

 or attempted , a systematic arrangement, when what he has written, 

 taken in its natural order, does not admit of being construed into a 

 system. 



Again, what is the object of any classification ? This, at least, among 

 others. To enable the person who uses it to study and describe more 

 conveniently the objects thus classified. If, therefore, Aristotle had 

 formed or adopted any system of arrangement, we should see it in the 

 order of the subjects in his work. Accordingly, so far as he has a 

 system, he professes to make this use of it. At the beginning of the 

 fifth Book, where he is proceeding to treat of the different modes of 

 generation of animals, he says, "As we formerly made a Division of 

 animals according to their kinds, we must now, in the same manner, 

 give a general survey of their History (dswpiav). Except, indeed, 

 that in the former case we made our commencement by a description 



Xai>Xi<5coi<ra. 



