320 



AMERICAN TESTUDINATA. 



Part II. 



its typical characters ; while in a third family the progress leads in a still different 

 direction, and ends in another typical form ; etc. And yet, in no one instance, can 

 these characteristic patterns be considered merely as resulting from an arrest in the 

 development of one continuous series. On the contrary, they are evidently mod- 

 ifications of one fundamental idea, expressed in various combinations of forms, which 

 are so linked together, that it is only by an abstraction on our part that their 

 connection may be ascertained, as it is only to an abstract conception that their 

 origin and their combinations can be referred. If this be so, — and the sequel 

 will, I trust, furnish satisfactory evidence that this is the only true view of the 

 case, — it follows, that the different patterns which characterize the different families 

 of Testudinata were devised, as the forms in which the structure of these animals 

 were to be clothed, before they were called into existence. The various relations 

 and the close connection which exist between these forms show further that their 

 combinations were so considered beforehand, that when brought into existence 

 they should constitute not only a regular series, but also a perfect system. In 

 other words, the very outline of these animals, humljle and low as they are, 

 proclaims as loudly as the grandest features of nature, the direct intervention of 

 a thinking Mind in their creation. 



SECTION II. 



THE FAMILY OF SPHAKGIDIDiE. 



The genus Sjihargis, which alone constitutes this family, is now generally 

 referred to the family of Chelonioid^e by modern herpetologists, though for some 

 time it has been considered as a distinct family^ by the ablest zoologists. In a 



* It is a fact worth noticing, that no modern her- 

 petologist has maintained the family of Sphargididoe, 

 though it was, at first, generally adopted as a natural 

 group. This is, no doubt, owing to the looseness of 

 the views now prevailing respecting classification. 

 In similar cases, the objection is constantly urged, that 

 a distinction is not necessary because the genera are 

 so few. It may be useless, it is true, if it leads to 

 nothing beyond the introduction of a new name into 

 the system ; but if the distinction is based upon an 

 accurate knowledge of the real standing of any sin- 

 gle species exhibiting genuine family characters, then 



it must be adopted, not because it may appear con- 

 venient, but because it exists in nature. I trust I 

 shall show that this is the case with Sphargis. The 

 first author who distinguished this genus from the 

 other Chelonii, as a family, is J. E. Gray, who calls 

 it Sphargidie, (Ann. of Philos. 1825,) though I think 

 it ought to be written Sphargidid^, in accordance 

 with its etymology. Th. Bell adopted it in 1828, 

 (Zool. Journ. Vol. 3,) and so does Fitzinger in his last 

 work, (Syst. Rept. 1843,) changing, however, the name 

 to Dermatociielyd^b ; but since 1844 Gray unites 

 it again with the Chelonioidoe. Canino considers it 



