98 CLASSIFICATION OF FISHES. 



therefove, never be supposed^ that because one genus^ or 

 one family^ is placed before another, vre consider it 

 more perfect or superior to the others in the system of 

 beings; — he alone could build up such a pretension, 

 ■who would attempt to place animal nature on a single 

 line. Such a project we have long since renounced, 

 as one of the most false that can he entertained in 

 natural history." — " True system," he again observes, 

 '• sees each being in the middle of all the others, and 

 shows all the radiations that hnk it, more or less inti- 

 mately, in the vast web of organic nature ; and thus 

 alone we acquire enlarged ideas, worthy of that nature 

 and of nature's God ; but ten or twenty of these radi- 

 ations will be often insufficient to express these mul- 

 tifarious relations." Nothing can be more in unison 

 with all that has been urged on the " multifarious re- 

 lations " of natural objects than this ; and no authority 

 can bring more weight to the opinion than this of 

 Cuvier's. True it is, that this conclusion was arrived at 

 by the celebrated Lamarck more than twenty years ago, 

 and that it has long been acted upon by a few of the 

 greatest naturalists now living. Nevertheless, the tardy 

 admission of 'SI. Cuvier to the impossibility of naturally 

 arranging objects in a single series, is even more valu- 

 able than if it had come sooner : the very delay shows 

 us that, in truly great minds, truth will finally triumph 

 over early imbibed prejudice, and, although not acted 

 upon, it will yet be acknowledged. If, therefore, we 

 make some attempt, in the following pages, to explain 

 and reconcile these "multifarious relations," and abandon 

 altogether the trammels of an artificial system, the very 

 essence of which is to place fishes in a single series, 

 we do nothing more than follow up the theoretical idea 

 of Cuvier ; — a coui'se, however, which imposes the 

 absolute necessity of abandoning all those parts of his 

 arrangement which interfere with the exposition of those 

 ^'multifarious relations" he speaks of, yet makes no ef- 

 fort to explain on any general principles. To attempt 

 to do this, however, in all the groups, would be mani- 



