162 INTRODUCTORY. 



in the Linnasan genus Scarabaus bear to each other. 

 I have, moreover, endeavoured to show that the order of 

 these affinities may be represented by two circles meeting 

 at one point, and having altogether an analogous structure 

 at their corresponding points. Relations of analogy have 

 thus been distinguished from those of affinity ; and it was 

 advanced by way of example, that though Dynastes Her- 

 cules might approach nearer to Scarab&us sacer in affi- 

 nity than Cetonia aurata, yet that these last, namely the 

 Scarab&us and Cetonia, had the most analogous formation. 

 With respect to my anatomical observations and the 

 affinities dependent on these, I have had the satisfaction 

 to perceive that their accuracy, so far at least as they re- 

 lated to the particular tribe of animals under consideration, 

 has never yet been disputed. But it has been objected 

 that in the ardour of discovery I have advanced my prin- 

 ciples too far, and have argued from a solitary and singular 

 fact to the existence of a circular disposition throughout 

 nature. I have been told that the idea of a chain of be- 

 ings returning into itself militates against those notions of 

 an ascending scale in nature, which not only are incul- 

 cated by revelation, but which have not even been dis- 

 puted by those naturalists who have been the most cele- 

 brated for scepticism. It was argued therefore, that the 

 principles of the former Essay, thus opposing themselves 

 to the most evident dictates of reason and revelation, 

 could never be generally adopted ; and that though the 

 affinities I had pointed out might exist, yet that they were 

 more probably only apparent, or at least the effect of ac- 

 cident; that in short my theory was in cunabulis, and too 

 weak, too fragile, to command attention, until I should 

 have first demonstrated it to hold good throughout all 



