AND ON THE RELATIONS OF ANIMALS. 9 



Structure ;" therefore, according to this law, there is no affinity, 

 as insisted upon by M. Cuvier, between them. These two 

 genera again, according to this rule, can have no affinity with 

 the long-armed Apes or Gibbons {Hylobates, Illiger), because 

 they differ from the former both in structure and in habits ; 

 the buttocks of the Gibbons are callous, while those of the 

 Orangs are hairy ; and yet all Zoologists have placed these 

 animals immediately following each other. 



But let us test the truth of this proposition in our own 

 branch, Entomology : the Gonepteryx Rliamni, Leach, has no 

 " similarity of structure or of habit " with Eurymus Edusa, Sw. ; 

 therefore, according to the above canon, they have no affinity 

 with each other. For the same reason, we must be wrong in 

 supposing Pontia cardamines is related by affinity to P. napi, 

 for their structures are different. But not to multiply further 

 instances, we must be quite wrong in supposing that any one 

 genus can have an affinity with another genus ; because, as 

 no two genera are " similar in structure," by " which a simi- 

 larity of function or of habit is implied ;" so we must, by 

 following the above rule, confine " affinities " to species, and 

 to those species only, where the structures, functions, and 

 habits, are perfectly similar. 



2. Next as to analogy. By this term, our writer " would 

 express a repetition of similar structure, where the whole of 

 the functions or habits entailed by that structure are not 

 present." 



What is this, but to say, in other words, that an animal 

 may have a peculiar structure, and yet be unable to exercise 

 those functions and habits which this very structure implies ? — 

 It would be like two wood-peckers, having a "repetition of a 

 similar structui'e" — that is, a wedge-shaped bill, stiff tail, and 

 scansorial feet — the one able to use these endowments, the 

 other denied this power ! Is there any such woodpecker 

 known to exist ? Does any such instance of contradiction occur 

 in the feathered creation ? or can the writer point out one solitary 

 example of such an anomaly in the whole animal kingdom ? I 

 feel confident he never could have thought upon his own 

 words, for they directly and palpably assert, that there are 

 animals who have been endowed by the Creator with a peculiar 

 structure, and yet have been denied the power of performing 

 the functions and habits thereunto belonging. Now, if such 

 an animal is an instance of analogy, and is not to be found in 



NO. I. VOL. III. c 



