23 



NOTE. 



P. 4. — " Hotceeer closely outwardfonns may approximale, there 

 is no instance, so far as I am aware, of a coincidence of formation, 

 in the osteology of different species of the saine genus." 



When this paper was read, at a Meeting of the Naturalists' 

 Field Clubs of Herefordshire, "Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire, 

 the above position was denied ; and the felidse adduced in 

 opposition to the text. I consider, however, that we can scarcely 

 be justified, in illustrating one great division of animate nature by 

 another. The laws which govern the one, may be totally different 

 from those which influence the other. This must apply, with 

 the greatest force, when two classes of animals, so far removed 

 in the scale of creation as fishes and terrestrial mammalia, are 

 compared. I was speaking of Ichthyology, alone. Nevertheless, 

 I think it will be found to apply, as a general rule, to every 

 grade of animal life — the felidse not excepted. The numerous 

 species of the genus felis, very closely approximate in their 

 osteology : but even here, it is only approximation — not identity. 

 Mr. Owen has shown a difference between the skull of the lion 

 and the tiger, for instance. The structural distinction, however, 

 between even the largest and the smallest of this genus — between 

 the lion and the cat — is so trifling, that Zoologists determine tho 

 various species, by other than anatomical details. Still, I cannot 

 but think — since the only permanent character is the skeleton — 

 that wherever this principle is unrecognized, there must be 

 perplexity. So closely are tho felidas anatomically allied, that 

 Temminck considers them zoologically indivisible. But what 

 Naturalist, has ever so affirmed of any genus of fishes? However 

 nearly external appearances may approach — as they do, in some 

 of the salmon species — I am bound to say, that I am not aware 

 of any instance, in which structural difference does not mark 

 species ; and therefore conclude that anatomy is the true basis to 

 distinguish them. Even were this not recognized by Naturalists, 

 and an observer of fish noticed, that there was a striking dis-, 

 tinction between the anatomy of different species of the same 



