THE QUINARY SYSTEM. 



xliii 



but God ?" * Should I be told that it is a mere figure of speech, 

 and refers to the mind of the observer, not to the reality, I must 

 say it is one which is extremely objectionable, inasmuch as it is 

 exactly the language of those who discard the Creator altogether, 

 and represent animals as their own creators ; while it is quite in- 

 congruous with the sound and lofty religious sentiments so fre- 

 quently expressed by the same talented and highly estimable 

 author. Viewed thus, it becomes a more serious matter than a 

 mere dispute about words, or about this and the other classification. 

 " The very styles and forms of utterance," says Lord Bacon, " are 

 so many characters of imposture, some chusing a style * * # * of 

 plausible tempting similitudes and examples, and some of great 

 words and high discourse." f Were there an obvious foundation 

 in nature for the doctrine, this objection, like the one derived from 

 the existence of evil in morals, might be grappled with as a diffi- 

 culty ; but I confess that these alleged types and aberrant groups 

 appear to me altogether fanciful. If I am called on to prove that 

 it is fanciful, I shall, in reply, call for proof of the types and the 

 aberrations, — the onus probandi evidently resting with the theo- 

 rists, and not with their opponents. The disciples of the system 

 indeed, though they seem to study little else, find it exceedingly 

 difficult, often impossible, to discover these types they hunt after, 

 or even to be certain of them when supposed to be found, a cir- 

 cumstance never characteristic of genuine philosophy. Yet I 

 have been told, that the doctrine of types is considered the most 

 stable of anything in Mr. MacLeay's system. So also thought Ro- 

 binet of his types, and referred triumphantly to the progress of the 

 frog from the state of a tadpole, and its subsequent transition 

 to a sort of fish, and then into a four-footed land animal; a pro- 

 gress which is a fact, though it does not support his inference, any 

 more than what is objectionably termed greater development in 

 one vulture compared with another, entitles us to call the first a 

 type, and to degrade the second into an aberrant group. Develop- 

 ment can never refer to one species compared with another, and 

 can only be accurately referred to the same individual when ma- 

 ture, compared with its infant state. 



The leading object of a student in Natural History and Na- 



* Seneca dc Bcneficiis, iv. 7. f Interpretation of Nature, Ch. 18. 



