OIL the present state of Zuuloyi/. 13 
to make a few general remarks on this subject, in reply to those who 
apprehend any detriment to the science of Zoology from the dissections 
of the comparative anatomists. We are not, then, of the same opinion 
with these individuals. We rather think that the further we push our 
inquiries into the real structure of animals, the clearer views we shall 
get of their organization as a whole, and of the relations which subsist 
between their internal and external characters. We allow that these 
last are what the Zoologist has to deal with more particularly. But 
let it be remembered, that before he can employ them rightly, he 
must know their true value ; and this can hardly be determined, ex- 
cept he possess an acquaintance with those concealed organs, and 
their respective functions, of which they may be considered as the 
outward signs or indices. Let us assume the case of two allied species, 
in which we observe slight differences in certain external characters ! 
and let us suppose that on dissection we find corresponding differences 
in those internal organs, between which and the former there is an ac- 
knowledged relation ; as in the instance of the teeth and the alimentary 
canal. Let us, again, assume another case, in which we find these dif- 
ferences existing in the former only, there being nothing analogous 
to them in the latter. Now, under such circumstances, should we 
not infer rightly, that this slight modification of external structure 
had a more determinate value in the first, than in the second, instance; 
and is it not clearly a result, to which nothing but anatomy will con- 
duct us ? It is, in fact, this subordinate science which has led us to a 
right understanding of some of the primary groups among the high- 
i er animals, and it is only by the same help that we can ever hope to 
perfect the details, of their arrangement. There was a time when bats 
were considered as birds, and whales as fish ; and lizards were clas- 
sed with quadrupeds simply because they possessed four feet. These 
errors, it is true, have been long exploded ; but we wish it to be 
borne in mind, that it was not until naturalists had ascertained the 
real organization of these animals, that the absurdity of them became 
apparent. It was then seen that external form, or mere analogy of 
habits, considered singly, was no sure guide to the knowledge of true 
affinities. Now the question is whether this principle which is thus 
necessary to be remembered on our first attempting to group animals 
according to their natural relations is ever to be abandoned after- 
wards ? After having made good in this manner our first steps, can 
we safely trust to any different reasoning for insuring our progress ? 
It is clear that the errors we may commit by so doing will be less 
glaring than those above-mentioned, in proportion as we have to deal 
with slighter differences than those which separate two distinct clas- 
