ON AFFINITY AND ANALOGY. 141 



Art. VIII. — Observations upon the relationships existing amongst 

 JVatural Objects, resulting from more or less perfect resemblance, 

 usually termed Affinity and Analogy, By J. O. Westwood, Esq. 

 F.L.S. 



In the fourteenth volume of the ' Transactions of the Linnea 

 Society, ' is contained an interesting paper by the Rev. W. 

 Kirby, with the title, " A Description of some Insects which 

 exemplify Mr. William S. Macleay's Doctrine of Affinity and 

 Analogy; " wherein the reverend author points out the confu- 

 fusion which has occasionally arisen, in attempts made to 

 distribute the objects of nature according to their natural rela- 

 tions, in consequence of the authors of such attempts having 

 no clear perception of the distinctions which exist between 

 these two kinds of relations, and therefore confounding them 

 together, or even occasionally giving the higher rank to rela- 

 tions of analogy instead of affinity. 



Since the publication of this memoir (which was read in 

 1822), and of the 'Horse Entomologicae' (one of the theories 

 contained in which it was intended to illustrate, and which 

 was published in the preceding year), much has been written 

 upon thes ubject of affinity and analogy in Natural History by 

 men who have brought a great share of practical knowledge, 

 as well as philosophical research, to bear on the subject. 



Still however it is unquestionable that great misconception 

 has existed and still exists upon this subject, owing, it is true, 

 to many causes which, it is to be hoped, are gradually pass- 

 ing away. The novelty of the subject, that is, as regards the 

 practical distinction between these kinds of relationships, and 

 their employment as respective elements in the natural distri- 

 bution of animals ; the difficulty of general access to the chief 

 works wherein the nature of the distinctions between affinity 

 and analogy are traced ; and, above all, the dislike of uproot- 

 ing long-established opinions, and the substitution of others 

 which required from their supporters a far more extensive ac- 

 quaintance with the objects of nature than was required in 

 the old works on classification; — have tended, in a great 

 measure, to prevent a general recognition of the doctrine of 

 affinity and analogy. Thus some writers have maintained the 

 impossibility of the existence of any relation between ani- 

 mals which are not specifically related, contending that each 

 is,/?^r se^ totally independent of the rest: others again, look- 

 ing rather more widely at nature, perceive that as the plant 

 gives support to the insect, and the insect to the bird or the 

 bat, so there is a relation between these objects, which kind 

 of relation, and others of a similar nature, have by these wri- 

 ters been termed analogies : others again, admitting the ne- 



