ANCESTRY AND CLASSIFICATION. 227 



are so recent in geologic time, and so similar in 

 structure to existing forms, that we only seem to 

 be carrying the present state of things a stage or 

 two farther back, and becoming no wiser than be- 

 fore concerning the ancestry of the group. 



Since, then, palaeontology refuses her aid, we 

 must look within the limits of the group itself 

 for indications of its past history. In the New 

 Zoology, classification and ancestry go hand in 

 hand ; it is only as present structure gives us n 

 clue to past history that it possesses much inter- 

 est ; and habit and modes of life have such close 

 connection with structure that they bear willing 

 testimony where formerly they were debarred a 

 hearing. Our classifications are only expressions 

 of confessedly imperfect attempts to represent the 

 natural affinities of animals, and natural affinity 

 is but another term for blood relationship, more 

 or less remote. It is therefore impossible, in 

 these days, to consider classification without 

 assuming as a postulate that it is a present ex- 

 pression of a past history ; and in that light no 

 single feature is wanting in interest. In fact, 

 nothing in nature is without its meaning, its con- 

 nection with the past ; and though in itself alone 

 we may despise a senseless stupid fact, yet when 

 it is placed beside others, with which it has har- 

 monious relations, it becomes fruitful in meaning. 



One of the most striking things we meet in 



