Mi orphology. ay 
as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral 
skeleton, for instance, be tortured into every conceiv- 
able variety of modification in order to subserve as 
great a variety of functions ; while another structure, 
such as the eye, is made in different sub-kingdoms 
on fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding 
that it has throughout to perform the same function? 
Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in 
the case of the skeleton the Deity has endeavoured 
to show his zugenuity, by the manifold functions to 
which he has made the same structure subservient ; 
while in the case of the eye he has endeavoured to 
show his resources, by the manifold structures which 
he has adapted to serve the same function? If so, 
it becomes a most unfortunate circumstance that, 
throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, 
all cases which can be pointed to as showing inge- 
nious adaptation of the same typical structure to the 
performance of widely different functions—or cases 
of homology without analogy,—are cases which come 
within the limits of the same natural group of plants 
and animals, and therefore admit of being equally 
well explained by descent from a common ancestry ; 
while all cases of widely different structures per- 
forming the same function—or cases of analogy 
without homology,—are to be found in different 
groups of plants or animals, and are therefore sug- 
gestive of independent variations arising in the dif- 
ferent lines of hereditary descent. 
To take a specific illustration. The octopus, or 
devil-fish, belongs to a widely different class of animals 
from a true fish; and yet its eye, in general appear- 
ance, looks wonderfully like the eye of a true fish. 
