188 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [A-pHl, 



difficult the explanation. Lamarck pointed out that no groups 

 existed in Nature but only individuals, yet he arrayed these indi- 

 viduals into certain mental groupings, such as was necessaiy for an 

 understanding of them. 



Classification, orderly arrangement, is demanded, so that the field 

 of facts may be better surveyed from the vantage points thus 

 gained. But a purely arbitrary and artificial classification, such 

 as many museum curators of an earlier time invented in order 

 to arrange an animal according to superficial examination alone — 

 and such as is still used by many who would avoid patient toil of 

 thorough examination of all the parts — is not a help to the mind, 

 for it does not represent the organisms in their natural relationships, 

 and hence it and the morphology nmst be memorized separately. 

 Phyletic classification shoidd be an epitome of our knowledge of the 

 genetic relations of organisms, and many tireless workers are 

 striving to make it so. Insomuch it may be regarded as the state- 

 ment of our knowledge of the succession of evolution, and conse- 

 quently, therefore, one of the main aims of zoological research. It 

 is not only a naming and arranging of the individuals we study, 

 not only a subservient preliminary to such study, but in its per- 

 fected condition a statement of all Ave have learned about the 

 organisms. All careful, accurate observation of structure and 

 function, and of the ecological phenomena which help to explain 

 these, must eventually be considered in such classification, by a 

 gradual and critical synthesis of all these facts. 



All that we learn is expressed in its relations, and we define one 

 organism in terms of another. Thus there arises a Avhole con- 

 nected representation of the data, and whether Ave Avalk by the 

 anatomical, the embryological, the physiological or the ecological 

 path, all must use the same method to test their conclusions, namely, 

 comparison. The classification that Ave striA^e for is based upon 

 comparison, and is to represent the path of eA^olution as far as the 

 facts alloAV us to determine it. 



There has been shoAvn by a more modern school of investigators 

 a spirit of disapprobation if not of disgust against the plotting of 

 " genealogical trees." To some extent they are justified in this 

 disapproval, Avhen Ave note the A'ariety of opinions as to the 

 relationships of many groups of animals. Thus, how few are the 

 groups Avhich have not been called upon to serve as the ancestors of 



