374 



THE AMERICAN NATURALIST [Vol. XLVIII 



the great morphologists, men who, being acquainted with the 

 whole of the anatomy of the forms they were classifying, de- 

 liberately selected one or two characters after a survey of the 

 whole — was rarely a success. Huxley set out unabashed to 

 classify birds by their palate, and Agassiz fish by their scales- 

 systems which have now shared the fate of most others which 

 set out to erect a classification on the modifications of a single 

 organ alone. Alfred Newton said that there was no part of a 

 bird's organization that by a proper study would not help to 

 settle the great question of its affinities. 



The systematist who deals with the minor subdivisions of the 

 animal kingdom— families and genera— should be as much a 

 morpholn<rist as the one who deals with the larger — the phyla 

 and classes. 



Description 



We have pointed out above that the adequacy of a system of 

 classification depends in great measure upon the thoroughness 

 of the description of the species and genera. Classification in 

 all groups has progressed in just proportion to the more exact 

 examination of the species considered in the classification. 



The history of zoological research brings out this fact very 

 clearly, beginning with the work of Linnaeus, the originator of 

 the superficial diagnosis, passing on through Olivier, who appre- 

 ciated the value of anatomical knowledge, to Von Baer, who 

 emphasized the importance of embryology. 



It was not a "systematist 7 ' as we know him who first correctly 

 classified Lt pas— the conchologists blindly accepted it as a 

 Mollusc. It was not a "systematist" who first established Peri- 

 patus as an Arthropod, for the first describer of that animal 

 regarded it as a slug ! 



How rare it is to find in a description of a new species any- 

 thing more than an indication of the external parts. It is a 

 peculiarly arbitrary limit to a man's curiosity that restricts 

 his enquiry to the superficial aspect of an animal. A natural 

 philosopher ought never to be satisfied with the external ap- 

 pearance of things. The wisdom of the ancients bids us "be- 

 ware of what things appear"; and the method of our modern 

 science is one of close and detailed observations. In scattering 

 names broadcast with liberal largesse upon species, varieties and 



