36 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
but the genus gives the characters; for this seems 
founded on the appreciation of many trifling points 
of resemblance, too slight to be defined ?!.” 
Now it is evident, without comment, of how much 
value aggregates of characters ought to be in classifica- 
tion, if the ultimate meaning of classification be that 
of tracing lines of pedigree ; whereas, if this ultimate 
meaning were that of tracing divine ideals manifested 
in special creation, we can see no reason why single 
characters are not such sure tokens of a natural 
arrangement as are aggregates of characters, even 
though the latter be in every other respect unim- 
portant. For, on the special creation theory, we 
cannot explain why an assemblage, say of four or 
five trifling characters, should have been chosen to 
mark some unity of plan, rather than some one 
character of functional importance, which would have 
served at least equally well any such hypothetical 
purpose. On the other hand, as Darwin remarks, “ we 
care not how trifling a character may be—let it be the 
mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in 
which an insect’s wing is folded, whether the skin be 
covered with hair or feathers—if it prevail throughout 
many and different species, especially those having 
very different habits of life, it assumes high value; 
for we can account for its presence in so many forms, 
with such different habits, only by inheritance from a 
common parent. We may err inthis respect in regard 
to single points of structure, but when several char- 
acters, let them be ever so trifling, concur throughout 
a large group of beings having different habits, we 
may feel almost sure, on the theory of descent, 
' Origin of Spectes, p. 367. 
