214? STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 



Here we have first to bring into practical use the 

 theoretical distinctions of analogy and affinity, 

 already touched upon. If the contents of one 

 genus appear to represent, in some few remarkable 

 peculiarities, the contents of another ; and if this can 

 also be traced through a third or a fourth ; we are 

 immediately impressed with a conviction that this co- 

 incidence is the effect of design. It is clear that these 

 resemblances, however strong, cannot be relations 

 of affinity ; because they occur in different circles, 

 which would be broken up and destroyed, if these 

 objects of resemblance were taken out and grouped 

 by themselves. An example of this will best show 

 its effect, and the violence it would commit on the 

 law we have set out with. The most inexperienced 

 ornithologist perceives a resemblance, more or 

 less strong, between the cock, the wattle bird, 

 the carunculated starling, the cassowary, and the 

 wattled bee-eater. All these, in fact, at first sight, 

 are immediately recognised by a head and face more 

 or less naked, and ornamented with fleshy crests or 

 wattles. Yet, if we concluded that this resemblance 

 or relationship was one of affinity, and therefore 

 proceeded to take all these birds out of the present 

 groups they stand in, and place them in one by 

 themselves, what a heterogeneous mixture should 

 we have ! Nor would this be all : the respective 

 circles in which each of these types now stand, would 

 of course be broken up, and another group would.be 

 formed of the wattled birds alone, which would be 

 any thing but circular. Resemblances like these, 

 as we known from experience, will be found in every 

 natural group. When these groups are remote, we 



