xl 



THE QUINARY SYSTEM. 



been found. Even upon the same principles it might, by revers- 

 ing Savigny's process, be as plausibly argued that the " perfect" 

 mouth of a beetle, is more imperfect than that of a gnat. The 

 correct view of the matter I take to be, that a worm is as perfect 

 " after its kind," as a man or an angel ; and that all its organs, 

 which are the workmanship of an All-perfect Creator, are as per- 

 fect, whatever be their number, for performing the functions 

 assigned them by divine wisdom, as those with which we our- 

 selves are furnished. Will the authors, who maintain that an 

 animal rises, in their scale of perfection, in proportion as it has 

 fewer feet,* — say that a goose is more perfect than an elephant, or 

 that a snail is more perfect than a man, because it has but 

 one foot, (as it is usually termed f,) or a worm more perfect 

 still because it has none ? Mr. MacLeay says well that there is 

 " nothing within the whole range of science more worthy of 

 profound meditation, than the plan by which the Deity regu- 

 lated the creation;" \ but when those who lay claim to the 

 discovery of this plan, or at least to part of it, talk of the Creator 

 wandering from a supposed type to form aberrant groups, and of the 

 64 imperfection" and "degradation" of particular animals, because 

 they have a greater number of feet, or a smaller number of feeding 

 organs, the strongest terms become too feeble for condemning the 

 highly objectionable doctrine. How very different was the conduct 

 of Socrates, who, according to St. Augustine, swore by the dog, 

 (kvw,) to teach the Athenians that this animal, being the workman- 

 ship of God, was more worthy of honour than images and idols. § 

 That the Quinary system is advocated by men of talent and learn- 

 ing, and occasionally with great eloquence and ingenuity || is much 

 to be regretted ; for though religious feelings have hitherto stood 

 prominent in the school, it certainly, from these plain documents, 

 appears calculated to be turned to the worst purposes of the sceptic, 

 confirming instead of furnishing, as is alleged, " a new argument 

 against those" who affirm "under the most stultifying blindness of 



* See Swammevdam's Book of Nature, Tab. xxxii. and Reaumur, Mem. iv. 

 Planches 41 and 42, &c. 



f Linn. Trans, xiv. 46. + Ibid. iv. 365. 



§ See Plato's Phsedon, and De Ver. Relig. iv. 

 || See Winter's Wreath for 1828, p. 289 ; and Zool. Jour. i. 196, &c.&c. 



