210 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 



parts, feathers for instance, of the same kind, but differing 

 in Injperoclie or elleipsis, should be put in the same ge?ws* 

 He also says that hyperoche and elleipsis may be taken to 

 mean the greater and the less, respectively.! 



Numerous passages show that the " greater " and the 

 " less " should be interpreted in a wide sense. Differences 

 in size and number, such as, for instance, in the lengths of 

 birds' beaks, wings, and legs, the widths of their tongues, 

 and the numbers of their feathers, t differences in hard- 

 ness or softness, roughness or smoothness, of the parts of 

 animals, § and the presence or absence of certain parts, such 

 as crests or spurs, I are given as examples of excess and 

 deficiency, or the greater and the less. 



According to Aristotle, the parts of some animals are not 

 the same, nor do they differ merely in excess or deficiency, 

 but in a different way according to an analogia or propor- 

 tion. Such an analogia exists between hands and claws, 

 nails and hoofs, and feathers and fish-scales, for, what a 

 feather is in a bird, the same is a scale in a fish. IT Further, 

 he says that animals which have a part merely analogous 

 to a part in certain animals should be grouped separately 

 from these, e.g., fishes should be grouped in one genos, and 

 birds in another, because the scales of fishes have only an 

 analogous resemblance to the feathers of birds.** 



Numerous passages in Aristotle's works show clearly 

 that he was constantly mindful of the idea that there exist, 

 in some animals, component parts which may be considered 

 to take the place of certain parts in other animals. In 

 addition to the examples already given, a relation of this 

 kind is said to exist between the forefeet of quadrupeds and 

 hands, tf between the brain of a vertebrate and the "brain" 

 of an octopus, + 1 and between fish-bone and the cuttle-bone 

 of Sepia or the pen of Loligo.^^ A consideration of these 

 passages, with their contexts, justifies us in believing that 

 Aristotle was the originator of the theory of analogies, and 

 this is in accordance with his statement: — " By ' analogon ' 

 is meant that, while some animals have a lung, others have 

 something in place of it, and that some animals have blood, 



* H. A. i. c. 1, 8. 2 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 6Ua. f H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3. 



I H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3 ; P. A. i. c. 4, GUa, iv. c. 12, 692b. 

 § H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 6 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 6446. 



II H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3. ^I Ibid. i. c. 1, s. 4. 

 ** P. A. i. c. 4, 644a. f f H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 2. 

 II P. A. ii. c. 7, 6526. §§ Ibid. ii. c. 8, 654a. 



