110 CLASSIFICATION OF FISHES. 



Orders of Fishes. Analogies. Orders of Birds. ° rde ," ' ^ d f Uad ~ 



Aca.vthoptertges. Typical. Insessores. Quadrumana. 1 



Malacopteryges. Sub-typical Raptores. Fer.e. 



C ARTILAGIXES. { ^eSSeaT^ dG " ] ^TATORES. CET*. 



J" Eyes small, placed ~i 

 Plectogxathes. -< far back towards > Grallatores. Glires. 



C the crown. j 



Apodes. Tail very long. Rasores. Ungulata. 



TTe were at first perplexed to discover how it was that 

 the Jlalaeopteryges, by being the sub-typical order, should 

 represent theRaptores and theFercs; because these fishes, 

 so far from being pre-eminently carnivorous, comprehend 

 the greater part of such as habitually feed upon vegeta- 

 bles; nor can this apparent contradiction be explained so 

 readily as we could wish, unless by looking to the nature 

 of the whole group. Now_, the class of Pisces is that 

 aberrant division of the Yertebrata which represents the 

 aquatic or fissirostral type of vertebrated animals : this 

 type, therefore, being eminently carnivorous, the ani- 

 mals which represent it, in its greatest perfection, must 

 equally be so : and thus we have an additional verifi- 

 cation of M. Cuvier's opinion, that the Acanthopteryges 

 are the most perfect of fishes ; while the Malacop- 

 teryges, which are next in affinity, become the next in 

 analogy, and are, therefore, the sub-typical. This view 

 of the question is confirmed on looking to the analogies 

 of other aberrant circles. If we take, for instance, the 

 scansorial birds, which form an aberrant tribe in the 

 circle of the Insessores, just as does the class of fish 

 in that of the Vei'tebrata, we find the analogies reversed 

 precisely in the same way. Of the two typical families, 

 the woodpeckers are the most carnivorous, although 

 they are the pre-eminent type ; while the parrots,, 

 which are the sub-typical, are entirely frugivorous. 

 Those naturalists, who may be interested in this ques- 

 tion, will remember how often we have adverted to it on 

 former occasions ; and we only again touch upon it here, 

 to show that, however contradictory our second analogy 

 in the foregoing table may at first appear, it is not dif- 



