1859.] REVIEW. 87 



with a thing (organ) in many points, but differing in more, or in 

 points of more importance. For example, the flowers of Ranun- 

 culus and PotentUla are analogous." " Affinity," again, " signi- 

 fies a resemblance in the principal part of its structure." From 

 these definitions it appears that these two terms differ only in 

 degree, not in kind. And this appears to be our author's opinion, 

 for whether he be right or whether he be wrong, the object of the 

 whole chapter appears to be to show that botanists have mistaken 

 the meaning and application of these two terms, or have con- 

 founded them. What the bigwigs may have to answer to this 

 charge, or whether they will condescend to answer it, or even to 

 notice it, is not our concern. The Professor modestly writes, 

 " Nisi falliraur, plantarum systemata multa prsebent testimonia 

 dissimilia typorum analogas formas vere affines habitas fuisse." 



The author had formerly (p. xlix.) defined these two terms 

 thus : " Ergo quorum organizatio ad eandem normam (typum) 

 conformata est, ea affinia (organa ?) ; quse ad diversam, ea analoga 

 dicimus."* He admits " that it is not always easy to distinguish 

 between analogous and related forms [affines). It sometimes 

 needs a severe investigation of the structure to be able to deter- 

 rnine what is analogy and what is affinity; — that universally 

 applicable rules for deciding this are impossible ; — that every de- 

 finition depends on the examination of the object to be defined." 



"Nusquam natura immutabili formarum lege adstricta cer- 

 nitur ; in aliis plantis formam aliam magis mutat et perficit ; ex 

 quo fieri potest, ut ese plantse quse proximse affines sint dissimiles 

 videantur, quse longe inter se distant, quibusdam partibus similes 

 nobis obveniant." 



As an example of what the author does not mean by affinity, 

 the following free translation of a sentence from p. Ixix. is given : 

 " For as the numerous carpels in the Orders Alismaceie Ranun- 

 culacecB, Potentillecs, are not adduced as a proof that these Orders 

 are related, so the great number of the carpels in Ranunculacete, 

 Magnoliacea, Rosacecs, and Calycanthea, and their spiral disposi- 

 tion, is no proof of affinity in these Orders." 



* The avitlior ilkistrates his view of analogy from the example of whales and 

 fishes. He calls these analogous but not related forms. (" Neque enim Cetacese et 

 Pisces conferuntur, quod pinnis natant," etc.) Plants may agree, he further adds, 

 in their leaves, iufloi^escence, in the number of the floral and carpellary organs, and 

 still be only analogous, not kindred {affines) forms. (See p. 1.) 



