138 Mr. W. S. MacLeay on the Dying Struggle 



reason to doubt whether Aristotle did or did not make the 

 true distinction between relations of affinity and analogy, as I 

 have shown in a paper lately most shamefully misprinted in 

 the Linnsean Transactions, vol. xvi. p. 9.; but it is indisputable 

 that Lamarck never did make the distinction. Lamarck de- 

 scribes three kinds of " rapports entre des organizations com- 

 parers," and two kinds of " rapports entre des parties sem- 

 blables ou analogues." All the three first kinds of" rapports" 

 appear to be relations of affinity. It is indeed possible that 

 true relations of analogy may be confounded with relations of 

 affinity under the second of these three, which is " celle qui 

 embrasse les rapports entre des masses d'animaux differens 

 comparees entre elles." Vol. i. p. 354. But whether this be 

 so or not, the " rapports entre des parties semblables ou 

 analogues," however these words may jingle in the ears of 

 Dr. Fleming, have, as Lamarck has explained them, nothing 

 whatever to do with what I term relations of analogy. Of 

 these " rapports" he describes, as I have said, two kinds, viz. 

 " rapports particuliers entre des parties non modifiees," and 

 " rapports particuliers entre des parties modifiees:" in other 

 words, the relations in point of value, as a groundwork of di- 

 stinction, between different systems of organs, such as those of 

 digestion, respiration, circulation, &c, and the relations in 

 point of value, as a groundwork of distinction, between differ- 

 ent forms of the same organ as they exist in different groups. 

 The study of the first kind of these relations is of use to point 

 out to us whether, in the variation of animals for instance, we 

 ought to lay most stress on the organs of digestion, like Lin- 

 naeus, or on the form of their eggs, like Sir Everard Home. 

 The study of the second kind of relations is of use to point 

 out to us whether, in the arrangement of animals for instance, 

 we ought to lay most stress on the variation of the structure 

 of the eye in Vertebrata where it is perfectly formed, or among 

 Mollusca where it is imperfect. Surely neither of these two 

 last relations are relations of analogy. Yet this Dominie, who 

 cannot understand Lamarck, has the impertinence to scoff at 

 him ! 



M. Virey out of national jealousy, as Dr. Fleming from 

 other feelings, has attacked me on this head. They have 

 both impotently endeavoured to fix upon me the charge of 

 plagiarism, with respect to the distinction of relations of 

 affinity from those of analogy. I have however repeatedly 

 stated that Linnaeus, Pallas, and Desfontaines, and even 

 Aristotle himself, have all mentioned certain analogies in na- 

 ture as distinct from affinities, before I was born. They have 

 mentioned the existence of this distinction in particular cases, 



but 



