SPECIAL CREATION OR DERIVATION? 



fected by Cuvier and Von Baer, and still further 

 elaborated by Huxley and Haeckel. Previous 

 to Cuvier many eminent naturalists endeavoured 

 to arrange the animal kingdom in a series of 

 lineally ascending groups. The illustrious La- 

 marck did so ; and the result was that he placed 

 oysters and snails higher up than bees and but- 

 terflies. Blainville did better, having come as 

 near as possible to surmounting insurmountable 

 obstacles, but he nevertheless is forced to put 

 cirrhipeds and myriapoda above the cuttle-fish. 

 It was a great step in advance when Cuvier 

 showed that there are at least four distinct types 

 of animal structure, and that no linear series 

 can be framed ; although Professor Agassiz un- 

 doubtedly transgressed the limits of scientific 

 inquiry when he attempted to explain the coex- 

 istence of these distinct types by resuscitating 

 from its moss-covered tomb the Platonic theory 

 of Ideas, and impressing it into the service of 

 natural theology. Nevertheless in his remark- 

 able " Essay on Classification," Professor Ag- 

 assiz more than atones for these metaphysical 

 aberrations by the conclusiveness with which 

 he shows the impossibility of making a linear 

 classification of animals. In such a series the 

 lowest of vertebrates, the unintelligent amphi- 

 oxes, would rank above the wonderfully organ- 

 ized crabs, ants, and butterflies. The degraded 

 lepidosiren would take precedence of the sal- 

 387 



