oj' the Dichotomous System. 44-5 



very object of it is to break up natural affinities, and as far as 

 it lies in the power of art to effect, to destroy them. Surely 

 here is a naturalist, to use his own words, who has " con- 

 founded two objects which ought to be regarded as perfectly 

 distinct, — 'the classification of organized beings so as to di- 

 stinguish them, and their classification with the view of exhi- 

 biting their affinities." 



In the " Philosophy of Zoology" it is said, that " the em- 

 ployment of the twofold method of division by positive and 

 negative characters is so easy of application, that the reluctance 

 which many naturalists seem to display in using it may well 

 excite our surprise." The fact is, that the system is so trifling 

 and easy, that it excites their contempt. In other words, to 

 use a colloquial expression, it will not take. What therefore 

 does the D.D. do; but now, perceiving that he was formerly 

 on the wrong scent, and could not get his twos into notice by 

 calling them easy, he adroitly changes ground, and, as a for- 

 lorn hope, states in the Quarterly Review, that " the labour 

 of an author who pursues the dichotomous method is greatly 

 i?icreased." He might have remembered, that of old, whether 

 he flogged the urchins of his parish-school high or low, he 

 never could make his labours perfectly agreeable to them. 



I shall now endeavour to precipitate a little of the mud that 

 clouds the Doctor's cranium on another subject. It is, as we 

 have seen, clear, that animals may be primarily divided into 

 viviparous and not viviparous, oviparous and not oviparous, 

 vertebrated and not vertebrated, winged and apterous, or, in 

 short, in as many difl^erent ways as they present points of 

 structure and habits. It is therefore equally clear, that it is a 

 matter of mere option on our parts, to select any one of these 

 modes of division, — such as, for instance, "viviparous and not 

 viviparous ;" and having so selected it, we find each of these 

 two primary groups to be dichotomous again, in as many 

 different ways as it presents points of structure and habits. 

 Selecting again one of these new divisions, the same thing 

 occurs, and so on. Dichotomous systems may therefore be 

 considered as almost infinite in number; and, consequently, 

 to talk of " T/ie Dichotomous System" means, in fact, nothing 

 else than that one Dichotomous system which Dr. Fleming lias 

 been pleased to decorate with Fliskian-Greek names. Our 

 worthy apparently has some indistinct perception of this ab- 

 surdity of liis system ; for, taking the bull boldly by the horns, 

 he denies — and, be it remarked, this denial is the most original 

 of all his cyclopaedia or non-cyclopfcdia manoeuvres, — the ex- 

 istence of a single natural method. 



['I'o l)c conliiuicil ] 



