THE OSPKEY. 



137 



"I, That every natural series of beings, in its 



progress from a given point, either actually 



returns, or evinces a tendency to return. 



again to that point, thereby forming a circle. 



"II. The primary circular divisions of every 



group are three actually, or five apparently. 

 "III. The contents of such a circular group are 

 symbolically (or analogically) represented 

 by the contents of all other circles in the 

 animal kingdom. 

 "IV. That these primary divisions of every 

 group are characterised by definite peculiar- 

 ities of form, structure, and economy, which, 

 under diversified modifications, are uniform 

 throughout the animal kingdom, and are 

 therefore to be regarded as the PRIMARY 

 TYPES OF NATURE. 

 "V. That the different ranks or degrees of circu- 

 lar groups exhibited in the animal kingdom 

 are nine in number, each being involved 

 within the other". 

 He then proceeds to give an attempted full 

 exposition and demonstration of these five pro- 

 positions in regular order. 



First, he endeavors to give an idea of what 

 he means by what he calls a "Natural", other- 

 wise •'Circular'" assemblage of animals (p. 225). 

 "The progression of affinity in any assemblage 

 of animals is known to be natural, if it is circu- 

 lar. This is shown when, by beginning at some 

 one point of the series, and following closely 

 the line of affinity, we are imperceptibly con- 

 ducted to that point again. The two extremi- 

 ties of the series will thus obviously be united; 

 and this union, of course, gives us the figure of 

 a circle. Between the two points, thus blending 

 into each other, a greater or lesser number of 

 modifications of form, in the intervening 

 animals, will occur, depending' entirely on the 

 greater or lesser extent of the circle we are 

 tracing'. These deviations, however ( as will be 

 hereafter shown), are all upon a uniform plan; 

 and, besides, in all cases, are secondary, or in- 

 ferior, to the leading characters of the whole 

 assemblage, which — in one way or another — 

 they all retain. Such a circle is called a natural 

 group: the whole group being employed, on this 

 occasion, to designate, indiscriminately, every 

 series or assemblage of beings, whose affinities 

 have been so made out. When such a series is 

 so gradually developed that no link in the chain 

 of continuity appears wanting, it is then termed 

 a perfect group. But when a part of the series 

 is perfect, and the other part presents the idea 

 of a chain where several of the links are want- 

 ing, then the group is called imperfect" . 



Second, he takes up the question of Number 

 and urges that Three is the predominant num- 

 ber, and that the subdivision of one of 1 lie 

 three into three minor circles is the basis of 

 MacLeay's conception of five as the regnant 

 number (p. 226). 



"As it is manifi st that every group, according 

 to its magnitude, will exhibit more or less 

 variety in its contents, the first question which 

 suggests itself is. Are these variations regu- 



lated by any definite number? And is that 

 number so constant, in all such groups as have 

 bei-n properly investigated, as to sanction the 

 belief that it is universal? The answer is in the 

 affirmative. Every group, whatever may be its 

 rank or value, (that is, its size or its denomina- 

 tion,) contains, according to our theory, three 

 other primary groups, whose affinities are also 

 circular. One of these is called the typical, the 

 other the sub-typical, and the third the aberrant 

 group. This latter is so much more diversified 

 in its contents (for reasons hereafter to be 

 stated) than the other two, that many naturalists 

 reckon five groups in all; the number five being 

 made out b3 r dividing the aberrant group into 

 three, instead of considering it as only oir ". 



Third, he enters on a consideration of the 

 degrees or kinds of resemblance and the sup- 

 posed difference between what he calls Affinity 

 and Analogy ip. 230). 



"There are, in nature, two sorts of rest m- 

 blances, which are termed analogy and affinity. 

 We have so fully explained these relations in 

 our preliminary volume*, that it is oi 'y in con- 

 sequence of our wish to exhibit in . coi nected 

 ~.iies all the laws of natural arrangement yet 

 discovered, that we now repeat, in some mea- 

 sure, the substance of what has already been 

 stated. 



"The most ordinary observer perceives, that 

 every created being has different degrees of re- 

 lationship or of resemblance to others. Where 

 this is immediate, it is termed an affinity; where, 

 on the other hand, it is remote, it is a relation 

 of analogy, f 



"The theoretic distinction between affinity 

 and analogy, in a more scientific point of view, 

 has been thus slated by the naturalist who first 

 gave a definite meaning to the terms: ""Sup- 

 pose the existence of two parallel series of 

 animals, the corresponding points of which 

 agree in some one or two remarkable particulars 

 of structure. Suppose, also, that the general 

 conformation of the animals in each series 

 passes so gradually from one species to the 

 other, as to render any interruption of their 

 transition almost imperceptible. We shall thus 

 have two very different relations, which must 

 have required an almost infinite degree of de- 

 sign before they could have been made exactly 

 to harmonize with each other. When, there- 

 fore, two such parallel series can be shown, in 

 nature, to have each their general change of 

 form gradual, or. in other words, their relations 

 ol affinity uninterrupted by any thing known— 

 when, moreover, the corresponding points in 

 these two series agree in some one or two re- 

 markable circumstances, there is every proba- 

 bility of our arrangement being correct. It is 

 quite inconceivable that the utmost human in- 

 genuity could make these two kinds of relation 

 tally with each other, had they not been so de- 

 signed in the creation. 



( To be Continued.) 



•Preliminary Discourse on Nat. Hist. 



fThere cannot be a better proof of the low ebb to which f-e higher depai tments of zoologj have sunk and t lie nnio- 

 rance "i chose persons who are engaged t,o write reviews of scientific works for the daily press, than the fact ol 'iieof 

 those critics, who undertook to censure our former volume, being totally unacquainted with the difference between 

 analogy wad. affinity! To him.it seems, they are uuly synonymous with resemblances," and such "resemblances" 

 forsooth, are to be ridiculed! 



