of certain Birds of Cuba. " "" ■ 7 



he may also be supposed by some to have understood this doc- 

 trine of variation in animal structure ; but it is easy to show, 

 that although this extraordinary man understood it to a certain 

 degree, he confined himself in the passage in question to the 

 division of organs, — a course of reasoning that led him quite 

 away from the conclusions he would indubitably have arrived 

 at, had he followed the variation of general structure. Still I 

 shall not be surprised if the originality of even this principle be 

 yiio vii.j ji:-d' -:au ::; ^au.-d ;:^',:,,;.u. j..:: :\ Xy-i.- - x..:,.. some 



long and those with short beaks, into those with crests and those without crests, &c. &c. 

 This is the most arbitrary, and therefore, I suppose, the oldest of all modes of arranged 

 ment ; and, as Aristotle expressly says, it is so easy, that any one may adopt it. i 

 have said a few words on its merits in the Hora Entomologies, p. 188 ; but the truth 

 is, that proceeding entirely on the notion of division, and not of affinity, it is a method 

 which is applicable to all sciences whatsoever, as much as to zoology. It has nothing 

 to do with the natural system, which must of course depend upon affinities. 



3. Thirdly, Organs may be arranged according to their analogies (xar avuXoyiav), as, 

 for example, when we compare the claw with a hoof, or the feather of a bird with the 

 scale of a fish : for, says he, what a feather is to the bird, a scale is to the fish. Had he 

 said, that animals instead of their organs may be arranged according to their analogies, 

 it is evident that he would have then distinguished relations of analogy from those of 

 affinity, Aristotle being too profound a logician to use the one word for the other. But 

 the instances given by him to explain his doctrine, prove that the word avuXoyix in this 

 place signifies comparison of form rather than resemblance inform. So that the proper 

 translation of the passage is, that similar organs may be arranged according to their 

 difference of structure, as when we compare a claw with a hoof, or, as he himself does 

 in another part of his work, the wing of a bird with the fore-foot of a quadruped. It 

 does not appear in this place very clear, whether Aristotle intended to apply his ma- 

 thematical axiom, and to say, that organs being arranged in this manner, the animals 

 may also. Although such a mode of reasoning will not lead to any false conclusions, 

 it is far from being an obvious mode, at that early period of natural history, for him to 

 have adopted. If he did not intend to call his axiom into action, he only stopped at 

 the resting-place of comparative anatomists in general, who often trace the modifications 

 of an organ without ever thinking of their use towards natural arrangement. If, on the 

 other hand, he did intend to apply it, my claim to the priority of arranging animals by 

 their variation of structure, would at first sight seem to be in danger. But it remains 

 to be considered, whether in this event his zoological arrangement (making allowance 



for 



