﻿INSESSORIAL ORDER. ANALOGIES. 345 



forward the remoteness of some of the analogies we have 

 already instanced, as a reason for not believing in 

 their universality ! If, as every one knows, there are 

 different degrees of affinity in the animal kingdom, it 

 follows as a necessary consequence of this fact (which 

 no one will ever dream of denying), that there must be 

 corresponding differences in the degrees of analogy. 

 The analogy between the swan and the ostrich is one 

 degree, that between the ostrich and the giraffe is 

 another, while the analogy between the bee and the 

 weaving birds (Ploceance) is another ; and yet this 

 latter, however remote, or however incomprehensible to 

 amateur naturalists, is founded on as sure and on as 

 demonstrable evidence as the analogy of the hawk to 

 the shrike, or eagle to the lion. Such persons seem to 

 forget that remote analogies can only be made out, or 

 in fact understood, by tracing them through the various 

 groups which intervene between those that are com- 

 pared. It is like a man looking to the last and the 

 first link of a graduated chain ; and because these links 

 differ so widely in size, stoutly maintaining that they 

 cannot possibly belong to the same series ; although, 

 when he sees the intermediate portion, he is obliged to 

 confess his error. To urge, therefore, that, — because of 

 their remoteness, some analogies are too obscure to be 

 easily understood, — the theory itself is objectionable, is 

 to say that affinities must not be believed, because they 

 do not all possess the same degree of resemblance. 



(286.) The analogies of the insessorial tribes with 

 the orders of quadrupeds, as shown in the foregoing 

 table, will fully illustrate the principle maintained in the 

 last paragraph. To a naturalist, unacquainted with the 

 details of both classes, they will appear not only remote, 

 but fanciful. " What can more clearly show the in- 

 fatuation of theory," it may be argued, " when it is 

 supported by the assertion, that a woodpecker is analo- 

 gous to a cow ! 99 Such reasoning, addressed to ordinary 

 persons, will be quite sufficient to settle the question ; 

 and yet, upon looking a little farther into the matter, 



