34 



PEOFESSOE HENEY WEBSTEE PAEKEE^ ON 



view. There is order in Nature. Scientific classification is the 

 expression of this. It is not a mere arbitrary help to memory. It 

 is, as Agassiz puts it, God's thoughts rendered into human language. 

 Thus the basis and the function of plant and animal classification. 

 ' There are gradations of likeness in animal structures.' The 

 systematist does not determine these, he only interprets them, 

 and his interpretation is the discovery to others of order in the 

 gradation. He deals with both elements of structure and form 

 (KaraffKevrj Kai /bLop(pr]), but rather with structure than with form and 

 functions. The structural marks of gradation suggest com- 

 munity of organization among widely separated forms. Here the 

 question of grade arises. What warrants it ? What determines 

 it ? Is it complexity of type or concentration of type ? Is it com- 

 plexity of structure and organs or concentration of structure and 

 organs ? And, withal, what place is to be assigned to psychical 

 qualities in the gradations of likeness and structure ? These are 

 vital questions. They are dealt with by Spencer in his Data of 

 Biology, under the heads, — Vitality of Organisms, Environments of 

 Organisms, and Individuality of Organisms. Corresponding aspects 

 of thought lead to the discussion of the subject of Professor Parker's 

 paper. He holds that ' A synopsis of recognized principles of rank 

 in the animal kingdom is a desideratum.' It seems to me that the 

 desideratum is to be supplied by collating the schemes of system- 

 atists rather than by the method followed by the Author. There 

 are abundant materials at hand for this purpose in the schemes of 

 Aristotle, Linnaeus, Lamarck, Cuvier, Oken, Owen and Quaterfages. 

 The summary of these in the work of Agassiz on ' Classification,' 

 taken along with Huxley's ' Introduction,' brings the materials 

 within reach for the deductions sought for in this Paper. I 

 feel, however, that it would not be fair to say more by way of 

 criticism, because justice could not be done to the Paper without 

 a discussion which would occupy more space than the Paper 

 itself." 



The Rev. G. F. Whidborne, M.A., F.G.S., writes : — 



*' It seems to me that in questions of rank in animals we ought 

 to argue from the general to the particular rather than from the 

 particular to the general. 



Each animal fills its exact niche in nature and from that takes 

 its actual rank. To discover or rightly to estimate this, it may be 

 needful to consider its separate elements, and their consideration 



