THE BEE. 131 



endeavouring to trace such distinguishing features 

 in each as will enable us to form some conception 

 of its general character. Besides, who can say that 

 there are definable boundaries to either quality ? 



There are creatures in existence, whereof you may 

 take one and show it to an experienced naturalist, 

 who will feel, handle, and dissect it, follow its life- 

 history from the incubation to the death, and, after 

 careful and unbiassed consideration, wiU. teU you that 

 it is a fish. Give the same creature to another 

 equally talented zoologist, and he will, after the same 

 toilsome investigation and scrutiny, declare it to be 

 a reptile. Is it not possible that, like the travellers 

 and the chameleon, both these men " are right, and 

 both are wrong " ? — aright in detecting the character- 

 istics of that group in which they respectively rank 

 the living object, wrong ia attempting to force upon 

 Nature limits that do not actually exist, and placing 

 the creature iu some square or circle iu the Animal 

 Kingdom, which they find it necessary to draw with 

 mathematical precision, ia order to aid their limited 

 understandings, and facilitate the studies of those 

 whom they desire to iastruct ? 



Well, then, if these difficulties arise in deciphering 

 the true nature of the external and visible forms of 

 animals, how much more perplexing must be the 

 attempt to define the precise character of the various 

 phases of miad with which they are endowed ! And 

 agaia, as in the case just quoted vdth reference to 

 the classification of animal forms, who has a right 



