STATUS OF ARISTOTLE IN SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY. 461 
human hand, and crabs’ claws (I, i, 4). Deceived by the inclusion 
of the proximal joints of the members within the common abdomi- 
nal integument and the elevation of the heel and carpus, in most 
mammals, he adopted the current view that all animals, except the 
elephant, differed from man in the contrary flexures of the limbs, 
having the joints of the fore limbs (really the carpus) directed 
forwards and those of the hind limbs (tarsus) directed backwards 
(II, i, 4). His observations of monkeys, which would have ena- 
bled him to add other exceptions to the elephants, were even 
forgotten for the time being in these “ generalizations.” * 
A still more evident failure to appreciate correlation of structure 
is exhibited in the statement that the lion has no vertebrae, but 
only one bone in the neck (II, i, 1), and yet no one—certainly no 
one habituated to comparison of things — could look upon that 
animal without perceiving the likeness to the cat,t and it might 
also be supposed that the very movements of the beast, or natural 
deductions concerning them if it had not been seen alive, based on 
the knowledge of the necessities of animal life and animal me- 
chanics, might have prevented the reception of such strange ideas. 
3. APPRECIATION OF GROUPS.— Among the multifarious objects 
of which the sense of sight takes cognizance, there are many so 
much alike that they are at first naturally confounded ; and intel- 
lectual acumen is exhibited, not in synthesis or the appreciation 
of the resemblances, but in analysis or perception of the differ- 
ences: especially is this the case, when the like forms are 
contrasted with others; the differences are then still more lost 
sight of and overshadowed by the closer common bond coming 
into bolder relief in contrast with the unlike. For example, it 
requires no penetrating acumen to recognize man, the monkeys, 
the. bats, the typical ruminants and the typical cetaceans as dis- 
tinct forms existent in nature. But such are fair examples of the 
Sroups for the appreciation of which Aristotle has been so highly 
‘auded,—groups which from their very nature in their integrity first 
appeal to the senses, and which only minute analysis enables the 
observer subsequently to differentiate into ultimate constituents. 
4. SUBORDINATION oF -GROUPS. — If, too, modifications of the 
PM e path ed seek the homologous relations of the members in man 
and the monkeys, remarking that both the arms and legs ate flexed as in man, and 
towards each other. (II, v, 3.) 
TYet Aristotle a A wee ode pees E 
lion’s internal parts, when exposed, resemble those of a dog. 
at ane ay 
