{ 
| 
MAMMALIA. 
cult to follow the opinion of the great naturalist 
of France, who, ignorant of the true nature of 
relations of analogy, imagined that the Psitta- 
ceous tribe of Birds ought to occupy the first 
step in the scale of nature below Man ; but we 
cannot help adopting the notion of Linnzus in 
the‘ Systema Nature,’ that although not near 
him in construction, they are yet analogous to 
him in various important respects. And, adopt- 
ing this notion, we must place the whole order 
of Insessores, to which Psittacus belongs, op- 
posite to the Primates, of which Man forms the 
type. 
ie The analogies existing between birds of 
prey and carnivorous quadrupeds having been 
noticed by Aristotle, who called both groups 
Gampsonucha, were enlarged upon by Plu- 
tarch. Among a host of moderns who have 
been struck with the resemblance, [ may par- 
ticularly mention Linneus, who in his ‘ Sys- 
tema Nature’ has expressly called his Acci- 
pitres ‘ Feris analogi ;’ and Buffon, who has 
treated the subject at length and with his usual 
eloquence. I conceive, therefore, that no one 
can object to the oy of my placing the 
Fere opposite to the Raptores. 
“ The analogy between Aquatic Birds and 
Aquatic Mammalia scarcely requires the men- 
tion of the authority of Linnzus to make it be 
granted. It is indeed so evident, that Her- 
mann, according to his custom, takes it for a 
relation of affinity. In both orders the ante- 
rior appendages of the vertebral axis dwindling 
into fins, and the two undivided posterior ap- 
pendages being placed so far behind on the 
axis as to show that both were intended for 
motion in the water rather than on land, are 
circumstances of themselves sufficient to autho- 
rize the placing of the Cetacea opposite to the 
Natatores. 
* Two orders still remain in each class to be 
considered : the Glires and Ungulata among 
the Mammalia; and among Birds, the Rasores 
and Grallatores. The relations of analogy 
pointed out by Linnezus between Mammalia 
and Birds are, as Hermann has observed, not 
always correct ; and his errors have arisen from 
the misfortune of his not detecting the natural 
group of Aristotle and Ray, which the latter 
has called Ungulata.* Having only been able 
to seize Aristotle’s subdivisions of this group, 
he lost the parallelism of analogy, and fell, as 
I shall hereafter show, into very glaring mis- 
takes. In the ‘ Systema Nature,’ however, he 
has mentioned that very striking analogy which 
appears between his groups of Gralle and 
ruta ; that is, according to the parallelism of 
analogy, between the orders of Grallatores and 
Ungulata, since the Bruta, as we have seen, 
do not form an order, but only a natural subdi- 
* In making this assertion, Mr. Macleay ap- 
pears to have overlooked the tabular arrangement 
prefixed by Linnzus to the more extended charac« 
ters of his orders of Mammalia. The only fault in 
the construction of his Ungulata is the exclusion of 
the elephant from that division ; for with respect to 
the edentate Bruta, Linneus and Cuvier correctly 
interpreted nature in placing them among the Un- 
guiculate Mammalia, 
243 
vision of the Ungulata. That this analogy is 
demonstrably true, I deduce from the following 
facts. Of their respective classes, tha orders of 
Ungulata and Grallatores contain eacine of 
the longest legs in proportion to the body,— 
witness Camelopardalis and Hamantopus. Both 
orders present us, in groups not exactly aquatic, 
with instances of the toes soldered together, as 
in the Horse ; or connected together by a web, 
as in the Flamingo. Both orders present us 
with the greatest elongation of muzzle or facies, 
—witness Myrmecophaga, or Antilope (particu- 
larly A. Bubalus L.), and Scolopaz ; and also 
with the most depressed form of muzzle,— 
witness Hippopotamus and Platalea, which 
genera also afford us the truest specimens of 
Wading Vertebrata. In both orders we have 
the most elongated claws,—witness Megalonyx 
and Parra. Both orders afford us the swiftest 
animals in running,—as the Horse and Tachy- 
dromus ; and the most pugnacious on account 
of love,—as the Bull and Machetes. The Bull 
moreover and the Butor Yor Bostaurus, for 
hence comes the bird’s name,) afford us the 
loudest and hoarsest voice of their respective 
orders : where we have also the most remark- 
able instances of the upper and under mandi- 
bles touching each other merely at their base 
and point ; as Myrmecophaga, or the whole of 
the ra pev ovx apQodovra of Aristotle, and 
Anastomus Illig. Both orders exhibit orna- 
mental appendages to the head,—as the antlers 
of the Stag and the crown of the Crane; and 
both orders afford us the only instances of true 
horns,—as Bos or Rhinoceros, and Palamedea 
L. To see a hundred instances of resemblance, 
it is only necessary to walk intoa museum. I 
shall therefore only further say, that both orders 
contain polygamous animals, are generally gre- 
garious, and more graminivorous than granivo- 
rous, being essentially inhabitants of marshes 
and savannahs. Thus then, with Linneus, I 
place the Bruta, or rather the whole order of 
Ungulata to which they belong, opposite to the 
Grallatores. 
“ Four orders in each class being now dis- 
posed of, it follows by parallelism of analogy, 
that the Glires ought to be placed opposite to 
the Rasores. But setting theory aside,—is this 
position true in fact ?* 
“ Linneus, from the above-mentioned error 
in his series of affinity, considered the Rasores 
to be analogous to his group of Pecora. But 
this group, according to Aristotle and Ray, is 
only a subdivision of Ungulata, which have, I 
consider, been now proved to be analogous to 
the Grallatores. If, therefore, Linneus be 
right in making his Bruta analogous to the 
order of Wading Birds, it follows that his Pecora 
must be so also. 
* <The ancient name of Struthio Camelus, as 
well as the form and habits of the Ostrich, show in- 
deed arelation of analogy to the Camel; but then 
we are to recollect, in the first place, that the Os- 
trich is at the osculant point or confines of the 
orders of Gralle and Rasores; and secondly, that 
such slight variations of the parallelism of analogy 
often appear, although I think it possible that even 
these are subject to rule.” 
R 2 
