a) ae 
ee eT 
ee ae eee, 
13 
that there is a measure of its height, a serial gradation in the 
groups forming its branches. In a remarkable passage in “ The 
Origin of Species,” Mr. Darwin, himself investigating the subject 
we have been considering, expresses himself in the language of 
the astronomer, and recalls to us the suns and circling planets 
and systems of worlds which in bewildering multitudes stud the 
infinitude of space. ‘These are his words: “The several 
subordinate groups in a class cannot be ranked in a single file, 
but seen clustered round points, and these round other points, 
and so on, in endless cycles.” 
To sum up the argument, then, in a few words, Natural- 
ists of repute refuse to allow that there is any arrangement of 
forms of animal life based on claims to superiority, no serial 
progression from less to more perfect. 
If this be the case, what becomes of any Criterion of Progress 
as far as the animal and vegetable world is concerned? 
For in what sense can we say that the fish is more perfect 
than the insect, the reptile than the fish? All that we can affirm 
is that each is admirably adapted to the conditions of its exist- 
ence. It is evident that the idea underlying such use of the words, 
“more perfect,” when applied to the successive types which 
indicate the course of animal development, is their approach to 
man in their structure and their functions. 
But is not this the same anthromorphic idea which we are so 
often told vitiates so many of our conceptions of the world, its 
origin, and its government? Is this principle only to be retained 
here and discarded otherwhere ? Is man in all respects the 
most perfect being of creation? Are there no qualities in which 
the so-called lower organisms are his superiors? Are there none 
with senses more acute, none with nerves transmitting more 
delicate waves of motion, none with instincts more marvellous 
even than his reason,—as attaining its ends without the laborious 
process of thought? But it may be said that man is superior by 
his intellect. Is the most intellectual man always and everywhere 
the highest, the most perfect ? 
Yet there is one more test of rank, one principle which 
Biologists invoke to decide the place of any organism in the 
hierarchy of life. The higher organization, they say, is that in 
which the parts are more specialized. It is one of exceedingly 
wide, almost universal, application, and it behoves us, therefore, 
carefully to examine it. It is our last hope of obtaining that 
scale and measure we are in search of. 
They define Specialization to be the setting apart certain 
portions of an organism to perform certain particular functions. 
This has happily been termed, by Milne Edwards, “‘ the phystolo- 
gical division of labour.” 
“Ts not this progress, then?’’ It may be asked, Is there 
not here a measure of rank ? 
