362 Mr. H. E. Strickland on the Structural 



tificial and natural productions, as between one object of the 

 latter class and another. It is clear from this how much lower 

 Analogies ought to stand in our estimation than Affinities. 

 The latter form an essential part of that magnificent plan of 

 Creation, which notwithstanding the amount of attention 

 which Man has given to it, is of so transcendental a nature, 

 that it may almost be said to be yet " to us invisible or dimly 

 seen." Analogies, on the contrary, appear not to form any 

 element whatever in the great System of Nature, but are 

 merely examples of the recurrence of certain mechanical 

 forms whenever the production of a certain mechanical action 

 called for them ; and so far from their being at or beyond the 

 verge of human comprehension, we have seen that Man enjoys 

 the high privilege of copying by these Analogies, at a humble 

 distance, the far transcendent works of his Maker. 



It would be an improvement in the language of Compara- 

 tive Anatomy, if the term analogous organs were limited to the 

 sense above defined. The serrations in the beak of a duck, 

 for instance, are analogous in form and in function to teeth., 

 but in their essential nature they are only a corneous modifi- 

 cation of the lips. Most anatomists, however, would habitu- 

 ally say that the beak of a bird is analogous to the lips of a 

 Mammal, though it must be evident how much more precise 

 their language would become if they spoke of this essential 

 relation as an affinity, and applied the word analogous to for- 

 mal or functional relations only. A similar inaccuracy is 

 committed by geologists in speaking of the recent analogue of 

 a fossil species, meaning thereby that living species which has 

 the nearest affinity to the extinct one. It would be more cor- 

 rect if they would term it the recent ajjine, or the recent homo- 

 logue. 



III. There is yet a third species of relation of structural 

 similarity between organized beings which has usually been 

 confounded with Analogy, but which appears to me to be di- 

 stinct from it in kind, as well as far inferior to it in import- 

 ance, — I refer to those cases where a resemblance in form or 

 configuration exists, but without any perceptible identity either 

 of essence or of function. Such, for example, are the resem- 

 blances between the flower of the Bee Orchis and a Bee, be- 

 tween the shell of Murex haustellum and a Woodcock's head, 

 between a Fungia and a Fungus, Ovulum and an egg, Haliotis 

 and an ear, &c. To this class also belong the numerous in- 

 stances of similarity of colour between Birds whose affinities 

 are remote, such as the resemblance of Oriolus to Xanthomas, 

 of Dicrurus to Corvus, of Cissopis to Pica, of Agelaius phceni- 



