188 ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION. Part I. 



acceptable, I hope, since few of oiir libraries contain even the leading works of 

 our science, and many zealous students are thus prevented from attempting to study 

 what has thus far been done. 



Science has begun, in the introduction of names, to designate natural groups 

 of different value with the same vagueness which still prevails in ordinary lan- 

 guage in the use of class, order, genus, family, species; taking them either as 

 synonyms or substituting one for the other at random. Linnajus was the first 

 to urge upon naturalists precision in the use of four kinds of groups in natural 

 history, which he calls classes, orders, genera, and species. 



Aristotle, and the ancient philosophers generally, distinguished only two kinds 

 of groups among animals, yt'roi and «?5oc, (genus and species.) But the tenn genus 

 had a most unequal meaning, applying at times indiscriminately to any extensive 

 group of species, and designating even what we now call classes as well as any 

 other minor group. In the sense of class, it is taken in the following case : 

 Xi'yco Si yi'vos, oJov oQviOa, y.a'i ixflvr, (Arist. Hist. Anim., Lib. I., Chap. I.,) while elSog is 

 generally used for species, as the following sentence shows : xni iam' ei'dij nhlm IxOvmv 

 y.ai 6(n'ii>iai\ though it has occasionally also a wider meaning. The sixth chapter of 

 the same book, is the most important in the whole work of Aristotle upon this 

 subject, as it shows to how many different kinds of groups the term ytvog is applied. 

 Here, he distinguishes between yevri fit'ywTK and yt'vt] ficydla and yi'voi; shortly. FirTj ds 



niyicra ray (^(amv, tit; a HiaiQihai ra).).a ftoa, rdS" tariv • tv [itv OQri^oiv, fV d' liQvwv, h).).o Si x»Jtoi'<,'. 



Jl}.).o Sf yi'vos iazt to rap 6(jTQa-/.oSsnfibjr Tcoc Si Xoinav ^wav ovx tan ra yi'vtj fiiyuhi • ov yug 



neQifjsi noXla si'St; iv fiSog, . . . . ru 5' f/E/ fth', d)!' (liojivfta. This is further insisted upon anew : 

 Toii di yi'ivvg Ttor TfToa;rd(5fo»' tcow)' y.ai t^aiaroxav eiSij jih' fi'fft nolld, diwnjia 8k Here siSog haS 



evidently a wider meaning than our term species, and the accurate Scaliger translates 

 it by t/enifs medium, in contradistinction to ytvog, which he renders by genus summmn. 

 ElSog, however, is generally used in the same sense as now, and Aristotle already 

 considers fecundity as a specific character, when he says, of the Hemionos, that 

 it is called so from its likeness to the Ass, and not because it is of the same 

 species, for he adds, they copulate and propagate among themselves : at xuloivrai 



I'lfit'ovoi. Si ofioiotijta, ovx ovaai dnlag to avxo ijSog • x«( yccQ o^svorrai xa'i ysrrmzai tj K^J.jJJ.wr. In 



another passage it applies, however, to a group exactly identical with our modern 

 genus Equus : iTtei iaxiv tv n ytrog xai tm roig (-/rovai xcirtiv, loffovQoig •Mtkovnivotg, oiov Inno) xai 

 oi'oi xai o(tsi y.al ytrv(i) xai hv(o y.ai roTg Iv 2vQia xa).ov[iH'aii iifiwroig. 



Aristotle cannot be said to have proposed any regular classification. He speaks 

 constantly of more or less extensive groups, under a common appellation, evidently 

 considering them as natural divisions ; but he nowhere expresses a conviction that 

 these groups may be arranged methodically so as to exhibit the natural affinities 

 of animals. Yet he frequently introduces his remarks respecting different animals 



1 



