On the present state ofZooloyy. 17 



ciples upon which we may proceed, each being- in accordance with cer- 

 tain obvious relations existing- in nature. We may either take for our 

 guide the principle of the subordination of characters, successively 

 grounding our divisions upon modifications of structure becoming less 

 and less important as we proceed downwards ; or we may seek to dis- 

 tribute animals into as many principal groups as there are well-mark- 

 ed series, each of these series being characterized by a peculiar type 

 of organization gradually becoming more and more simple in its de- 

 scent. The former of these principles is that which was first deve- 

 loped, and so strenuously upheld, by the great Cuvier, and which is 

 still adhered to by a large proportion of the naturalists in France and 

 in our own country. The latter may be distinguished in many of the 

 systems which have appeared in Germany, as well as in some which 

 have emanated from other quarters. It may be said, that, as there 

 can be but one natural system strictly speaking, it is impossible that 

 both these principles can conduct to true results. This would be cor- 

 rect if animals exhibited only one hind of relation to each other. But 

 we know that they exhibit more than one ; and hence we are not with- 

 out hope, that, notwithstanding the opposite nature of these principles, 

 the day may come, in which it will be found possible to reconcile the 

 views to which they have respectively given birth. We, in fact, are 

 inclined to think, that some slight approach to this reconciliation al- 

 ready shows itself in the theories of those naturalists who distinguish 

 between relations of affinity properly so called, and relations of ana- 

 logy. It does not follow, that the theories themselves, by which it is 

 attempted to explain these relations, and to refer them to given laws, 

 are necessarily correct. Which, or whether any, of them can be so re- 

 garded, is a matter for time to determine. We would here simply 

 draw attention to a point which may hereafter prove in some measure 

 a bond of union between two conflicting opinions of the present day, 

 and conduct at length to truths of which it will be then found that 

 each party had some faint glimmerings. 



There is another circumstance which tends to confirm our hopes that 

 naturalists are approaching gradually to some just and uniform results, 

 and which merits notice. And that is, that, notwithstanding the di- 

 versity of their views respecting the details of systematic arrangement, 

 — there may often be observed certain features of resemblance (not of 

 identity) in the general principles from which they set out. This re- 

 semblance may be especially traced in two very different schools esta- 

 blished in Germany and in our own country respectively. Thus, for 

 instance, the principle first laid down by Oken, that the classes of the 

 animal kingdom are severally characterized by the particular develop- 



