36 Da^'zvin, and after Darwin. 



but the genus gives the characters ; for this seems 

 founded on the appreciation of many trifling points 

 of resemblance, too sHght to be defined^." 



Now it is evident, without comment, of how much 

 value aggregates of characters ought to be in classifica- 

 tion, if the ultimate meaning of classification be that 

 of tracing lines of pedigree ; whereas, if this ultimate 

 meaning were that of tracing divine ideals manifested 

 in special creation, we can see no reason why single 

 characters are not such sure tokens of a natural 

 arrangement as are aggregates of characters, even 

 though the latter be in every other respect unim- 

 portant. For, on the special creation theory, we 

 cannot explain why an assemblage, say of four or 

 five trifling characters, should have been chosen to 

 mark some unity of plan, rather than some one 

 character of functional importance, which would have 

 served at least equally well any such hypothetical 

 purpose. On the other hand;, as Darwin remarks, " we 

 care not how trifling a character may be — let it be the 

 mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in 

 which an insect's wing is folded, whether the skin be 

 covered with hair or feathers — if it prevail throughout 

 many and different species, especially those having 

 very different habits of life, it assumes high value ; 

 for we can account for its presence in so many forms, 

 with such different habits, only by inheritance from a 

 common parent. We may err in this respect in regard 

 to single points of structure, but when several char- 

 acters let them be ever so trifling, concur throughout 

 a large group of beings having different habits, we 

 may feel almost sure, on the theory of descent 

 ^ Origin of Species, p. 367. 



