HOUGHTON ON ARISTOTLE's HISTORY OF ANIMALS. 141 



It appears to me that it is desirable in the attempts at identifica- 

 tion of the various names of animals to interpret Aristotle by Aris- 

 totle as far as possible ; for when we wander off into the Zoological 

 mazes of Pliny or Aelian, we enter a field full of fable, and one 

 therefore from operations in which little solid aid is to be antici- 

 pated. 



I should be glad to learn that this short paper is deemed of suffi- 

 cient importance to stir up in the minds of Naturalists a desire to 

 possess an English Translation of the History of Animals. 



Aristotle's History of Animals. 

 Chapter I. 



Of the parts of animals some are simple, as many, namely, as are 

 divided into similar parts, as flesh into flesh ; others are compoimd, 

 as many, namely, as are divided into dissimilar parts, for the hand is 

 not divided into hands, nor the face into faces ; of these latter, some 

 are called not merely parts but members, as is the case with all those 

 which being of themselves entire have within them other parts, as the 

 head and the leg, the whole of the arm and the trunk,* for these 

 of themselves constitute entire members and contain different parts ; 

 all the dissimilar parts, moreover, are composed of similar ones, as 

 the hand of flesh, nerves, and bones. Now some animals have all the 

 parts the same one with another, others different. Some parts are 

 the same in form ; as, for instance, the nose and the eye of one 

 man are identical with the nose and the eye of another, and 

 flesh is identical with flesh, and bone A\'ith bone. Similarly in 

 the ease of horses, and as many other animals as in form we say 

 are the same one wdth another, for the parts stand in the same 

 relation each to each as the whole to the whole. Again, some 

 parts are the same, but difler in excess and defect, as in the case of 

 those animals whose kind is the same ; by kind I mean such a differ- 

 ence as there is betM^een a bird and a fish,t for of these animals 

 each differs in its kind and in relation to its kiud,:f: and there are 



* Gwpo?, Aristotle in this place and in ch. 7, uses this term to denote the 

 " ti-unk" of the body; in ch. 10, he applies it in a more limited sense, to signity the 

 breast or thorax. 



f ykvoQ, in this passage, will thus be identical with the ' class' of modern zoolo- 

 gists, but the term is employed by Aristotle in no definite sense; y'tvoQ may denote 

 either a r/emis, an order, or a class. In ch. 6, § 1. the Cephalopodous molluscs are 

 regarded as one of the yh/t] jxiyioTa, comprising the Classes of Bkds, Pish, &c. ; 

 the Cetacea are similarly classified. 



\ Kara to ytf og Kai vpog to ykvoQ. Aristotle asserts that the differences which 

 exist between animals, as for instance between a bird and a fish, may be viewed 

 under two aspects ; there are differences between the various families, genera, or 

 species which comprise the class, and there are differences between the classes them- 

 selves, when viewed relatively to each other. Some MSS. omit Kai 7rj)6t,' r. y.; see 

 Camus, Animanx (VAri^tote, i. p. 487. 



