Notices respecting New Books. 377 



be further from the truth; Mr. Macleay does not, in the entire course 

 of his preface, even once either expressly make or indirectly imply 

 such an identification. He speaks throughout of the natural system 

 as a thing which it is the end of the pursuit of natural history to dis- 

 cover, not as a thing yet discovered by any naturalist, and not at all 

 as having been discovered by himself. Nor can the assumption Mr. 

 Rennie would insinuate be discovered, (neither is it in the smallest 

 degree implied,) in the quotations which follow from Mr. Macleay's 

 paper in tlie Transactions of the Linnsean Society, and from his 

 "Letter on the Dying Struggle of the Dichotomous System." 



But previously to our entering in detail upon this part of the sub- 

 ject, we must, for another purpose, quote and make some remarks upon 

 the remainder of this page of Mr. Rennie's book ; it is as follows : — • 

 "Again, speaking of his discovery of what he calls the nature of the 

 difference between affinity and analogy, Mr. Macleay says, ' It is 

 quite inconceivable, that the utmost human ingenuity could make 

 these two kinds of relation tally with each other, had they not been so 

 designed at the Creation.' * In another place he talks of portions of 

 his system being 'almost mathematically proved to be natural f.'" 

 The italics are all Mr. Rennie's. We have in the extract now 

 before us, the first example of a numerous class of misinterpreta- 

 tions of the plainest figures and forms of speech in the English 

 language, which distinguish the present production of this champion, 

 before whose mighty prowess all the discoveries of modern zoology 

 are to be dispelled, like the illusions of fancy before the blaze of truth ; 

 a class of errors, which must either have resulted from wilful determi- 

 nation not to understand the representations of the New School of 

 Zoology, as they are used by their authors and designed to be under- 

 stood by them, or else the most deplorable and unpardonable igno- 

 rance of his own language, and of the figures common to all language, 

 which a claimant for literary or scientific honours ever yet displayed. 

 As we shall show in the sequel, the entire drift of this page, is to 

 support the assertion that Mr. Macleay's system and " the natural 

 system" are regarded to be identical. To contribute towards the 

 accomplishment of this purpose, Mr. Rennie puts the word nature 

 above, in italics, prefaced bya "what he calls," meaning to insinuate 

 thereby that in the phrase "nature of the difference between affinity 

 and analogy" is contained an implication that that difference, is, ipso 

 facto, a part of " the natural system," of the system actually existing 

 in nature. Whether this proceeds from effrontery or ignorance, it 

 is equally astoni-shing; had .such a line of argument been related 

 to us of any writer, we should have denounced it as incrediljje, but 

 here it is before our eyes, and we can but wonder. In order 

 that no ambiguity or pretext for evasion may exist, we shall cite 

 the passage of the " Dying Struggle" in whicli the word is used 

 by Mr. Macleay. We shall, like Mr. Rennie, distinguish it bv the 

 italic character. M. Virey and Dr. Fleming having both endea- 



• Linn. Trans, quoted in " Dwiiy Strujjgle," p. 2G. 

 t " Dying Strugele," p. 28. 



N.S. Vol. 10. No. 59. Nov. IbSl. S C voured 



