258 ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION 



under a Latin or Greek name, or was advanced by the additional 

 burden of a new nomenclature. Another objectionable practice, pre- 

 vailing quite as extensively also, consists in the change of names or 

 the modification of the extent and meaning of old ones, without 

 the addition of new information or of new views. If this practice is 

 not abandoned it will necessarily end in making Natural History 

 a mere matter of nomenclature, instead of fostering its higher philo- 

 sophical character. Nowhere is this abuse of a useless multiplication 

 of names so keenly felt as in the nomenclature of the fruits of plants, 

 which exhibits neither insight into vegetable morphology nor even 

 accurate observation of the material facts.®^ 



May we not return to the methods of such men as Cuvier and 

 Baer, who were never ashamed of expressing their doubts in diffi- 

 cult cases and were always ready to call the attention of other ob- 

 servers to questionable points, instead of covering up the deficiency 

 of their information by high-sounding words! 



In this rapid review of the history of Zoology I have omitted sev- 

 eral classifications, such as those of Kaup and Van der Hoeven, 

 which might have afforded an opportunity for other remarks, but 

 I have already extended this digression far enough to show how the 

 standards I have proposed in my second chapter may assist us in 

 testing the value of the different kinds of groups generally adopted 

 in our classifications, and this was from the beginning my principal 

 object in this inquiry.''^ The next step should now be to apply these 



^ [Agassiz was entirely justified in this condemnation of the zoological practices of 

 his time.] 



•^ In this edition [1859] of the Essay on Classification which is intended as an Intro- 

 duction to the study of Natural History in general, Janus van der Hoeven's text-book 

 deserves more than a passing notice, especially since its translation by Professor Wil- 

 liam Clark, Handbook of Zoology (1856) is likely to be in the hands of every English 

 student of Natural History. The manner in which the characteristics of the minor 

 groups are presented in this work is so admirable, the reference to the proper authori- 

 ties so full, the evidence of a personal acquaintance with the objects described so 

 general, and the freedom from mere compilation so praiseworthy, that it is not only 

 to be considered as a text-book for beginners, but truly as a compendium of the pres- 

 ent state of Zoology that may be useful even to the professional naturalist. Although 

 taking the views of Cuvier respecting the primary divisions of the Animal Kingdom 

 as a guide, the author does not seem to hold them of such importance, or sufficiently 

 defined, to deserve special consideration. He has thus deprived himself in great meas- 

 ure of the opportunity of presenting in a connected manner those broader generaliza- 

 tions respecting the affinities and homologies of the different classes of animals, which, 

 however, constitute the most important progress of modern Zoology and ha\e secured 

 for our science so important a place among the philosophical studies of our age. It 



