22 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XXVII, 



capybara and musk deer, which foreshadows similar unnatural assemblages 

 such as " Jumenta," " Belluse," " Pachydermes " etc., of later authors. Other 

 mistakes were the inclusion of the camel and the elephant among the ungu.i- 

 culates, the bracketing of rodents and carnivores, etc. Among the viviparous 

 ([uadrupeds with unguiculate multifid feet were a residue described as 

 "anomala" which could not be made to fit into the dichotomous scheme. 

 These anomalous forms, including certain Insectivores, the Bats and Eden- 

 tates, Avere also the stumbling block of the naturalists of the succeeding 

 century, and were variously distributed among their "Bestise," "Bruta," 

 "Anomalopes," etc. 



As to the criteria of classification, taking the position in the system of the 

 Cats and Dogs as an example we have the following arranged in the order 

 of their importance: (1) number of feet (quadruped a); (2) hoofed or clawed; 

 (3) bifid or multifid; (4) with digits unseparated or separated; (5) flat clawed 

 or narrow clawed and with incisors in each jaw; (6) incisors several, habits 

 carnivorous, insectivorous or omnivorous, or incisors paired, ph}i;ophagus; 

 (7) larger or smaller forms; (8) head rounder (Cats) or longer (Dogs). 



From this we see that the characters of the feet were regarded as much 

 more important and convenient than those of the teeth, which only appear 

 sixth in the list. 



The "good" and "bad" features of the classification (from the modern 

 viewpoint) alike arise from the consistent and rigid application of a single 

 set of characters, namely those of the feet, throughout the class. This is an 

 inherent defect of the dichotomous method, that it must be consistent and 

 logical, whereas in the narrow sense, nature is neither. The associations 

 and disassociations of the dichotomous method must sometimes be artificial, 

 because it commits the classifier in advance to the selection and arrangement 

 of characters in the order of their importance and universalitij; it encourages 

 the deductive rather than the inductive method of classification. At the 

 same time an artificial classification is a far better augury of progress than 

 none at all and we shall see later naturalists improving and developing 

 Raja's system with important residts. 



In brief, although following the pioneer Wotton, (p. 15) Ray may justly 

 be regarded as the founder of modern zoology. He was the great figure of 

 the seventeenth century, as Linnaeus was of the eighteenth and Cuvier of 

 the early nineteenth. More logical and analytical, while perhaps less origmal 

 and synthetic in his genius than Linnaeus, he indeed "made a pathway in 

 the zoological field which Linne was glad to follow, and to some extent he 

 anticipated the brightest thoughts of the great Swede." (Gill.) 



