FLEAS 105 



a commodity, is sold in one part of the building, and certain types of 

 food, such as meat, fish, and groceries, are conveniently assembled at 

 different counters. The commodities in Harrods' stores are, broadly 

 speaking, classified according to their function in the world of men. That 

 is to say goods intended for wearing, eating, drinking, reading or 

 smoking are sold in different departments. This makes shopping 

 easier than if they were, for example, classified according to their colour, 

 when you would find fire engines, tomatoes, " Who's Who," seahng 

 wax and flannel petticoats all in the same department. 



Animals are classified scientifically with two main objects in view. 

 Firstly, to render the animals in question easy to deal with from a 

 purely practical point of view — to identify them quickly and accurately, 

 to be able to describe them in print clearly, and to read about them with 

 understanding. Secondly, to demonstrate their biological position 

 among all hving things. In other words they are classified according to 

 the degree of fundamental relationship which exists between them. 



To the layman it is obvious that a cat and a leopard are more alike 

 than a cat and a canary. On the other hand they might well be de- 

 ceived by a whale's superficial and outward resemblance to a 

 shark, and be excused for thinking that both these animals are 

 fish. Similarly a man from Mars might decide after a glance at 

 a Dutch cheese, that its rightful place in Harrods' stores was the toy 

 department and not the grocery counter. 



Classification should serve as an aid to study, but man's passion for 

 pigeon-holing knowledge frequently results in the creation of a hopeless 

 muddle. " The human understanding, from its pecuhar nature," 

 remarked Francis Bacon, "easily supposes a greater degree of order 

 and equaHty in things than it really finds." Animals cannot be 

 forced into a fixed scheme, and however profound the biological truths 

 reflected in such classification, all workable and practical schemes of 

 this sort are to a certain extent arbitrary and therefore unsatisfactory. 



When a classification is being built up all the characteristics of the 

 animals concerned have to be taken into consideration, ranging from 

 morphology and life history to differences in behaviour and habits. 

 In practice, however, there are some characters which vary more than 

 others, some which prove more reliable and more stable, and again 

 others which are more easily seen under the microscope or which lend 

 themselves to relatively brief and simple description. Thus, for example, 

 the bones and teeth are largely used as a basis for dividing up the 



