COMPARATIVE METHODS OF PHILOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY. 2'] 



descended in the first or second degree, have been extinct 

 for a longer or shorter period. And this is the case. The 

 Ario-Romanic and the Sclavo-Germanic tongues have long 

 been altogether extinct, as are also the primitive Arian and 

 Grgeco -Romanic, the Sclav^o-Lettic, and primitive Germanic 

 languages. Some even of the languages descended from 

 these have also long been dead, and all those of the Indo- 

 Germanic branch which are yet extant, are akin only in 

 so far as they are divergent descendants of common parent- 

 forms. Some have diverged from this ancestral form more, 

 others less. 



This easily demonstrable fact very well illustrates 

 analogous facts in the descent of vertebrate species. Phy- 

 logenetic " Comparative Philology," as a powerful ally, sup- 

 ports phylogenetic " Comparative Zoology." The former can, 

 however, adduce far more direct evidence than the latter, 

 because the palseontological materials of Philology, the 

 ancient monuments of extinct tongues, have been far better 

 preserved than the palseontological materials of Comparative 

 Zoology, the fossil bones of vertebrates. The more these 

 analogous conditions are considered, the more convincing 

 is their force. 



We shall presently find that we can trace back the 

 genealogical line of ]\Ian, not only to the lower Mammals, 

 but even to the Amphibia, to the shark-like Primitive Fishes, 

 and even far below these, to the skull-less Vertebrates allied 

 to the Amphioxus. It must be remembered this does not 

 mean that the living Amphioxus, Shark, or Amphibian accu- 

 rately represent the outward appearance of the parent-forms 

 of which we speak. Still less does it mean that the 

 Amphioxus, or the Shark of our day, or any extant species 



