2 ON THE SERIES OF NATURE, 



science nor a lover of truth. The two leading scientific jour- 

 nals, the Literary Gazette and the Athenaeum, have given us, 

 on the present occasion, striking examples of these opposite 

 classes of writers ; and this, perhaps, is the best test of their 

 relative merits, of the feelings of their respective editors, and the 

 abilities of their coadjutors. The remarks which follow will be 

 chiefly, if not exclusively, directed to the opinions expressed by 

 the writer in the Literary Gazette ; the other will be dismissed 

 in a few words. 



The chief points at issue are such as every naturalist must 

 be deeply interested in. They are, I. The Scale of Nature, 

 and, IL The Relations of Animals. 



The first question will not detain me long, and I give it the 

 priority, in support of my belief that the writer (evidently a 

 good physiologist) has but a very slight, I might add, super- 

 ficial acquaintance with Zoology ; and that he is still less 

 acquainted either with the labours, or the opinions, of the 

 large majority of British naturalists. The principal objec- 

 tions urged against the circular theory of affinities, are, I. That 

 it leads to " discordance among its divers followers." 2. " To 

 most unnatural deductions to fill up hiatus and gaps." 3. 

 " That the general form or contour of an animal is made a 

 primary distinction." 



Now, as to the vahdity of these objections. L If discordance 

 of opinion as to the value of a system is to condemn it, what 

 system that has ever been invented must not, by such a test, be 

 condemned? Let us take that of the Regne Animal, of which 

 the writer has such an overweening opinion. It claims to be, 

 and in many parts really is, based upon the mutual connexion 

 of structure with habit. Why then has this system been 

 opposed, — strenuously and successfully opposed, — on the very 

 same principles of arrangement, by De Blainville, in the 

 whole Animal Kingdom ; by Illiger, in the Quadrupeds and 

 Birds; by Lamarck, in the Invertebrata; by Temmink, Vieil- 

 lot, Lesson, Latreille, Wagler, and Bonaparte, in Ornithology ; 

 and by a host of others of minor note. Here there is a " dis- 

 cordance of opinion" among the followers of the principles of 

 M. Cuvier, far, very far greater than what we have had among 

 the advocates of circularity. The truth is, that no system 

 ever given to the world has received so much opposition as 

 that of M. Cuvier; for, although his anatomical facts have 



