100 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



As before stated I do not hold this view, chiefly because the 

 congeneric habits more than hint at a connection similar to that 

 figured earlier in this paper. One feels, however, bound to bear 

 this style of evolution in mind, and in the case of such an 

 evolution of three species as figure 2, it would be hard to say 

 which two of the species was nearer the third. 



When I am speaking of structural changes, I wish to state 

 that I do not imply by this any great structural change, but 

 merely those minor differences that are generally credited as 

 denoting generic divergence, or rather the lesser rank that 

 generic modern divergence tends to assume. 



If (going back to figure 1) we place Anas at A, Aix sponsa at 

 B, and Aix galericulata at C, we may be on the track of the 

 curious interbreeding results got from those forms, Aix sponsa 

 hybridising more readily with the Anatince than it does with its 

 apparently nearer relation Aix galericulata. 



I cannot account for these anomalies unless it be by some 

 such hypothesis as the above, or modifications of this by 

 parallelism or convergence. 



In using the term " relationship " for animals, it is necessary 

 that we note clearly what we mean. In using this term "near 

 relation" for human beings, we mean that those persons are 

 nearer (genealogically) to a grandfather than to some remoter 

 ancestor, that is, one farther back in the genealogical tree. It 

 would seem that we ought not to so understand this term, when 

 we apply it as meaning nearness or divergence in species. 



For instance, in the case of the Porto Santo Eabbit. This 

 animal is supposed to be descended from European Babbits 

 about the beginning of the fourteen hundreth century, being 

 turned down on this island. 



It is probable that the original ancestor of the European 

 wild Eabbit and the English wild Eabbit are not connected 



