On the present state of Zoology. 18 



to make a few general remarks on this subject, in reply to those who 

 apprehend any detriment to the science of Zoology from the dissections 

 of the comparative anatomists. We are not, then, of the same opinion 

 with these individuals. We rather think that the further we push our 

 inquiries into the real structure of animals, the clearer views we shall 

 get of their organization as a whole, and of the relations which subsist 

 between their internal and external characters. We allow that these 

 last are what the Zoologist has to deal with more particularly. But 

 let it be remembered, that before he can employ them rightly, he 

 must know their true value ; and this can hardly be determined, ex- 

 cept he possess an acquaintance with those concealed organs, and 

 their respective functions, of which they may be considered as the 

 outward signs or indices. Let us assume the case of two allied species, 

 in which we observe slight differences in certain external characters ! 

 and let us suppose that on dissection we find corresponding differences 

 in those internal organs, between which and the former there is an ac- 

 knowledged relation ; as in the instance of the teeth and the alimentary 

 canal. Let us, again, assume another case, in which we find these dif- 

 ferences existing in the former only, there being nothing analogous 

 to them in the latter. Now, under such circumstances, should we 

 not infer rightly, that this slight modification of external structure 

 had a more determinate value in the first, than in the second, instance; 

 and is it not clearly a result, to which nothing but anatomy will con- 

 duct us ? It is, in fact, this subordinate science which has led us to a 

 right understanding of some of the primary groups among the high- 

 er animals, and it is only by the same help that we can ever hope to 

 perfect the details of their arrangement. There was a time when bats 

 were considered as birds, and whales as fish ; and lizards were clas- 

 sed with quadrupeds simply because they possessed four feet. These 

 errors, it is true, have been long exploded ; but we wish it to be 

 borne in mind, that it was not until naturalists had ascertained the 

 real organization of these animals, that the absurdity of them became 

 apparent. It was then seen that external form, or mere analogy of 

 habits, considered singly, was no sure guide to the knowledge of true 

 affinities. Now the question is — whether this principle which is thus 

 necessary to be remembered on our first attempting to group animals 

 according to their natural relations is ever to be abandoned after- 

 wards ? After having made good in this manner our first steps, can 

 we safely trust to any different reasoning for insuring our progress ? 

 It is clear that the errors we may commit by so doing will be less 

 glaring than those above-mentioned, in proportion as we have to deal 

 with slighter differences than those which separate two distinct clas- 



