410 ORIGIlS'Al AETICLES. 



WvaTrairrim by "wriggling" is surprising, wliat must be the Re- 

 viewer's correction under the circumstances of the case ? 



The Greek word is etymologically derived, I have not the shghtest 

 doubt, from elXvio, (akin to e'iXu)) " to fold up or enwrap," and 

 airaofjiai, " to draw one-self up" ; the combuied term well expresses 

 the mode of progression of leeches and " geometric or looping" cater- 

 pillars. I cannot agree with Mr. Cresswell, who renders the term by 

 " creeping in the mud" (as from 1\vq), because this would come 

 rather under the category of " where" than " in what manner," and 

 is lar too indefinite to express the peculiar mode of progression of 

 the leech family.* 



Another matter of surprise is occasioned by the supposition, 

 " that the translator should find any difiiculty respecting the two 

 well known words yivoq and ddoQ of such frequent employment in 

 the writings of Aristotle, and so familiar to both naturalists and me- 

 taphysicians." I can assure the Reviewer that I had no difficulty 

 whatever in understanding the precise meaning of both these terms. 

 As to yivoQ it is certain that Ai'istotle uses it to denote either ' a class,' 

 or an ' order,' or a ' genus ;' but where the ancient Philosopher has 

 only two distinct terms, and modern Zoologists so many to express 

 the various divisions in the animal kingdom, it is not so simple a 

 matter as is supposed to render the Greek term correctly in every 

 instance ; Mr. Cresswell's recent translation, excellent as I believe it 

 to be, will aftbrd illustrations of the truth of this remark. As to 

 fX^oc, I am aware, that when Aristotle uses this term in what we 

 shoixld call a scientific sense, it differs in no respect from the 

 ' species' of the modern Zoologist, but he does not always so employ 

 it. Thus, (i. 6. § 3) he speaks of many forms {tilr^) of viviparous 

 quadrupeds, which are without " recognised generic names," as Dr. 

 WheweUt well translates avijw^a. It is clear that uZt} in this 

 passage is not to be restricted to ' species,' because Arisbotle speaks 

 of these I'ihr] (§ 1.) as having specific differences, and seems to regret 

 that they are, with the exception of the Xo^ovpa (_£J(2'?<w/r»), without 

 names, by means of which the groups might be respectively charac- 

 terised. J 



* See Etym. Mag. s. v. ed. Gaisf. otto tov tlXtJaOai Kai TTratrOai. The form 

 IkvffTraaQat (t for ft) led Lexicographers to doixbt the etymology. See Stephani 

 Thes. and Hesych. Lex. s. v. Josepluis (^Antiq. i. 4.) uses the term as expressive 

 of a serpent's mode of ]n'ogrcssion. 



t Bint, of the Induct. Sciences, iii. p. 292. Ed. 1857. 



J " I ought also to remark that, although Aristotle has exemplified gi'oups cf 

 animals which agree with many of the modem classes, orders and genera, their rela- 

 tive value is not .so defined; and his, in most respects, natural assemblages would have 

 commanded greater attention and been earlier and more generally recognised as tlie 

 basis of later systems, had its immortal author more technically expressed an appre- 

 ciation of the law of the subordination of characters ; but Aristotle applies to eacli 

 of his groups the same denomination, viz, ykvog, germs; distinguishing, however, 

 in some cases the greater from the less."— Owen, nw ilie Classi/ication, c^c of the 

 Mammalia, p. 3. 



