64 Boundary between Man (January, 
arrangement must needs be rejected. There may be cases 
where a division into two groups is quite natural and justifi- 
able. Such groups may even be exclusive, and to some 
extent antithetical. Thus we may feel bound to refer all 
substantive entities to the two classes, ‘‘ matter” and 
“spirit.” We may neither be able to break down the 
boundary between these two groups, nor to point out a third 
co-existing group. Still, the possibility of matter and spirit 
being both phases of a something as yet hidden is gradually 
dawning upon some of us. 
Looking, again, upon material objects, we may feel forced 
to regard them as either “ organic” or ‘‘ inorganic.” The 
distinction between these two groups may grow less and less 
striking as our knowledge extends, but it does not entirely 
vanish. Still less does a third group make its appearance. 
Again, the division of the higher forms of animal life into 
males and females—obnoxious as it is to the champions of 
the Woman’s Rights Movement, and inconvenient as it 
proves to a certain class of world-betterers—can neither be 
abrogated nor explained away. There is, to be sure, a time 
in the life of hen pheasants, and other female gallinaceous 
birds, when they—in the magniloquent language of a weekly 
literary organ of epiccenes and garotters—“‘ rise up and look 
their tyrant in the face,” in the hope that, ‘‘ ever after, he 
will sit uneasily on his” roost. In plainer words, hens who 
reach a “certain age”’ assume, to some extent) male 
plumage; attempt, not very successfully, to crow; and 
make themselves generally ridiculous, by attempting to be 
what they are not. Does such a change come over not 
merely individuals, but whole species, and is the human 
race approaching the time for this change? If so, there is 
an opening for some of ‘‘ our poor relations.” If differen- 
tiation means development, what conclusion must be drawn 
from the effacement of differences ? 
In spite, however, of the above-mentioned exceptions, 
and of a few others, real or apparent, I maintain that every 
case of binary classification is suspicious, as being probably 
ex parte honums. ‘The history of Science fully justifies this 
caution. The successive overthrow of such arrangements 
is certainly not the least striking feature in the career of 
modern discovery. ‘This assertion I shall briefly endeavour 
to make good. 
In the dark ages—or ages of faith, as they are called by 
men of the De Maistre school, who wish their revival—no 
antithesis was more common and more firmly established 
than that of ‘‘earth and heaven.’”’ The planets were not 
