186 Mr. H. E. Strickland on the Natural System 



erroneous must be all those methods which commence by as- 

 suming an a, priori system, and then attempt to classify all 

 created organisms in conformity with that system. This, 

 nevertheless, is a defect which exists more or less in many 

 modern methods of classification. The greater part of these 

 arrangements are based on an assumption that organic beings 

 have been created on a regular and symmetrical plan, to 

 which all true classifications must conform. Some natural- 

 ists have attempted to place all animal species in a straight 

 line, descending from man to a monad. This theory assumes 

 that each species (excepting the two extremes) has two and 

 only two direct affinities; one, namely, with the species which 

 precedes, and the other with that which follows it. Others, per- 

 ceiving the existence in many cases of more than two direct 

 affinities, have compared the natural system to a series of 

 circles, or to the reticulations of network. Many authors 

 have assigned the most mathematical symmetry to the dif- 

 ferent parts of the system by maintaining the prevalence 

 throughout of a constant number, such as 2, 3, 4, 5, or J. In 

 applying these views to facts, they have of course found nu- 

 merous exceptions to the regularity of their assumed formulae; 

 but by adducing the extermination of some species, and our 

 ignorance of the existence of others, and by applying a Pro- 

 crustean process to those groups which were either larger or 

 smaller than the regulation standard, they have removed the 

 most glaring objections to their theory, and have with won- 

 derful ingenuity given their systems an appearance of truth*. 

 But when the unprejudiced naturalist attempts to apply any 

 one of these systems to Nature, he soon perceives their inef- 

 ficiency in expressing the real order of affinities. The fact 

 is, that they all labour under the vital error of assuming that 

 to be symmetrical, which is in an eminent degree irregular 

 and devoid of symmetry. I will now proceed to give my 

 reasons for taking this view of the subject. 



1. A priori considerations, so far from leading us to assume 

 a regular geometrical pattern, or numerical property in the 



* As these remarks may appear somewhat severe, it is right to substan- 

 tiate them by a few examples. So long as these systems are admitted by 

 their authors to be artificial, it would be as unjust to object to them, as to 

 complain of the alphabetical arrangement of an encyclopaedia, that it broke 

 the connection of the subjects. The reply would of course be, that an en- 

 cyclopaedia does not profess to arrange subjects in their natural order, but 

 merely aims at convenience of reference. The remarks in the text, there- 

 fore, merely apply to those symmetrical methods which profess to exhibit 

 The Natural System. The examples are seleected from Mr. Swainson's 

 ' Classification of Birds,' in which work the reality of the quinary system is 

 insisted on throughout. See Appendix. 



