!() 



ON THF. SI RIF.S OF NATURE, 



the creation, it follows that analogy, as defined by our author, 

 no where exists. 



3. Resemblance, with naturalists, is usually considered as 

 too comprehensive a term to express similitudes ; and there- 

 fore we divide resemblances into two distinct sorts, viz. that of 

 analogy and affinity, only using the general or generic term, 

 when we are unable, from a deficiency of analysis, to decide 

 upon its specific nature in the case before us. Our critic, 

 however, is of a different opinion, and thinks that it deserves 

 a separate definition. Resemblance he defines as " a repetition 

 of structure, when function is not implied at all." 



Now, if this definition be correct, it is a complete denial of 

 what he previously says,— that "Zoology, as a philosophic 

 study, consists in tracing the connexion between form and 

 ftmction ,*" and again in the following paragraph : — Zoology is 

 " a science of structure and of function, and a philosophy 

 founded on the use of parts and the habits of animals ; as 

 such, it cannot retrograde." This is most true, but the 

 assertions in the above definition would imply that structure 

 and function are quite independent of each other ; and that one 

 may exist, and in the same individual too, without the other ; 

 consequently, that there is no solid basis even for his own 

 definition of the " Philosophy of Zoology." If, in cases of 

 resemblance, which are innumerable, there is no connexion 

 between structure and function, how can they be traced ? and 

 what becomes of the philosophy of our science ? This defini- 

 tion, in short, reiterates the last, in asserting that nature pre- 

 sents the most outrageous anomalies : — it maintains that two 

 animals may have a " similarity of structure," yet that one 

 of them may not have a single function or habit of the other. 



Our author has refrained from bringing forward any facts or 

 examples in support of his first and second propositions, but he 

 quotes those I have given as instances of analogy, and he calls 

 them resemblances ; as proofs, in short, where the structure is 

 unaccompanied by its corresponding function. But upon what 

 authority does he assert this? His, or rather my instances of 

 analogy, (p. 254,) are the " Tragopan Pheasant of India, the 

 Horned Screamer of America, and the Unicorn Chatterer of 

 Brazil," all which have horn-shaped protuberances on their 

 heads. But what does the critic, any more than myself, know of 

 the functions of these organs ? If he, or any one else, can 

 enlighten us upon these points, science will be truly benefited ; 



