6 ON THE SERIES OF NATURE, 



powers, that " perhaps no man living has made so little use of 

 his knowledge to construct a natural arrangement." 



I had almost passed over another objection, not indeed 

 stated in precise language, but which seems to be urged against 

 us, for laying any stress on the " unusual development of any 

 particular part of the body, as an excessive tail," &c; for, it is 

 argued, where this development occurs it is not accompanied by 

 a similarity of functions, therefore the character is subordinate 

 or useless. Here the writer seems to be unconscious, that 

 in thus censuring me, he is also condemning M. Cuvier, 

 Geoffroy St. Hiliare, and all the princes of our science. I 

 must, therefore, again entreat he will turn to the Regne Animal, 

 where he will find that M. Cuvier separates the genus Inuus 

 from that of Macacus, because the latter have tails, and the 

 former none. M. Geoffroy distinguishes Pithecia from 

 Mycetes, because the tail of one is short, and of the other 

 long and prehensile. Cebus again is separated from Mycetes, 

 because its long prehensile tail is covered with hair. And as a 

 sixth example, in the very same family, Callithrix is detached 

 from Cebus, because its long hairy tail is not prehensile ! 

 Now it so happens, that all these instances of primary generic 

 characters, drawn from the structure of the tail, occur in a 

 single group of the Regne Animal. If then I have erred 

 upon this point, it is some consolation that the censure of the 

 Reviewer is equally shared between me and M. Cuvier. In 

 selecting this as a subject for condemning the " circular 

 theorists," the critic has been peculiarly unfortunate. 



I have ventured to express a belief that the writer is but 

 very slightly acquainted with Zoology, and that he is equally so 

 as to the sentiments of our most leading naturalists. To defend 

 the circular theory, is really now become, as I am afraid your 

 readers will think, a work of supererogation ; seeing that all 

 those who, by their writings, stand in the foremost ranks of 

 our native science, have, either directly or indirectly, by advo- 

 cating or adopting this brilliant discovery of our illustrious 

 countryman, rendered all further defence of this prime article 

 of our creed, on the score of authority, quite unnecessary. 

 When we look to the names of MacLeay, Horsfield, Gray, 

 Professor Lindley, Vigors, Stephens, Sir W. Jardine, Selby, 

 Bell, Newman, and Westwood ; not to mention such illustrious 

 men as Fries, Agardh, Nees Von Essenbeck, and Isidore 



