320 OBSERVATIONS ON SHARON TURNEr's 



found a perfect master of physical science. It is therefore with a 

 view of guarding against the propagation of error rather than of 

 blaming the author for inaccuracies which in him are very excusa- 

 ble^ that we shall proceed to notice a few points which require 

 correction. 



No error in natural history is more common or more productive 

 of prejudices and false opinions than that of mistaking relations of 

 analogy for those of affinity ; that is, of supposing from some 

 superficial or accidental resemblance between two objects, that 

 there exists between them a real and intimate connection. This 

 mistake is particularly common among the vulgar and ignorant, 

 who are satisfied with observing external resemblances, without 

 troubling themselves to examine those points of connection which, 

 though less obvious, are yet often far more important. Hence it is 

 that the ears of the naturalist are so often startled with hearing the 

 vulgar class bats among birds, lobsters and oysters among fish, and 

 worms and slugs among insects, with numerous other errors of a 

 similar kind. And although such palpable mistakes are confined 

 chiefly to those who are ignorant of natural history, yet in the 

 minor subdivisions of the animal kingdom, similar errors are often 

 committed by men of science 5 and it must be acknowledged that 

 the determination of affinities and analogies is often, in the minuter 

 details of the science, a work of great difficulty. We have been 

 led to these remarks by perusing the 8th and 9tb letters, which 

 treat of the creation of fish and whales. Here, though the author 

 is hardly chargeable with classing the cetacea among fish, since he 

 expressly mentions the points of difference, and commends Moses 

 for making a distinct mention of each, yet on reading further it is 

 clear that he could not divest himself of popular and erroneous 

 notions on the subject. We frequently find him applying to the 

 class of fish, properties which do not belong to them at all, but are 

 peculiar to the cetacea, the phoccB, or the Crustacea. The 9th letter 

 is chiefly devoted to defending fish from the sweeping charges of 

 insatiable voracity and apathetic stupidity which Goldsmith and 

 other authors had brought against them. However ill-founded 

 these charges may be, yet we must beware of using fallacious 

 arguments in refuting them, whereas our author often refers to 

 the vivacity and comparatively high order of intellect possessed by 

 seals and whales as a proof of the existence of these qualities 

 among fish. Thus at page 267, " The mild and harmless character 

 of the fish class of being in its general prevalence, is impressively 

 exhibited by most of its larger tribes. The great Greenland Whale 

 pursues no other animal, &c. — The formidable Narwhal displays 

 the same disposition. — The Oronooko Manati — and others of this 

 tribe — are likewise gentle and peaceable animals." We have here 

 animals belonging to two distinct orders of mammalia brought in 

 to establish the character of gentleness in the class offish. Again 

 at p. 263, "As fishes have not a larynx, or organ of voice, nor 

 lungs to collect and emit the air which is to be made vocal by it, 

 they do not communicate their meanings, wants, or feelings, by 



