19B Mr. Huxley, on Natural His fori/, [Feb. 15, 



restoration of the internal organs. But bow do we conclude, from 

 the peculiar many-ringed body, with jointed limbs, of this ancient 

 marine animal, that it had all these other peculiarities ; in short, that 

 it was a crustacean ? For any physiological necessity to the con- 

 trary, the creature might have had its mouth, nervous system, and 

 internal organs arranged like those of a fish. We know that it wa& 

 a crustacean and not a fish, simply because the observation of a vast 

 number of instances assures us that an external structure such as 

 this creature possesses, is invariably accompanied by the internal 

 peculiarities enumerated. Our method then is not the method of 

 adaptation, of necessary physiological correlations ; for of such ne- 

 cessities, in the case in question, we know nothing : but it is the 

 metliod of agreement; that method by which, having observed 

 facts invariably occur together, we conclude they invariably have 

 done so, and invariably will do so ; a method used as much in the 

 common aifairs of life as in philosophy. 



Multitudes of like instances could be adduced from the animal 

 world ; and if we turn to the botanist, and inquire how he restoras 

 fossil plants from their fragments, he will say at once that he knows 

 nothing of physiological necessities and correlations. Give him a 

 fragment of wood, and he will unhesitatingly tell you what kind of 

 a plant it belonged to, but it will be fruitless to ask him what phy- 

 siological necessity combines, e.g. peculiarly dotted vessels, with fruit 

 in the shape of a cone and naked ovules, for he knows of none. 

 Nevertheless, his restorations stand on the same logical basis as 

 those of the zoologist. 



Therefore, whatever Cuvier himself may say, or others may 

 repeat, it seems quite clear that the principle of his restorations was 

 not that of the physiological correlation or coadaptation of organs. 

 And if it were necessary to appeal to any authority, save facts and 

 reason, our first witness should be Cuvier himself, who, in a very 

 remarkable passage, two or three pages further on, (Discours, pp. 

 184-185,*) implicitly surrenders his own principle. 



Thus then natural history plainly teaches us that the utilitarian 

 principle, valuable enough in physiology, helps us no further, and 

 is utterly insuflScient as an instrument of morphological research. 



But does she then tell us that in this, her grander sphere, the 

 human mind discovers no reflex, and that among those forms of 

 being which most approach himself alone, man can discover no 

 indication of that vast harmony with his own nature which seemed 

 so obvious elsewhere? Surely not. On the contrary, it may be 

 regarded as one of the noblest characteristics of natural history 

 knowledge, that its highest flights point, not to a discrepancy between 

 the infinite and the finite mind, but to a higher and closer union 

 than can be imagined by those whose studies are confined to the 

 physical world. For where the principle of adaptation, of mere 



* Ossemens Fossiles, 4nie Edition, T. 1 . 



