THE QUINARY SYSTEM. XXxLx 
oak, and a horse into a man, or that these degrade from man on 
all sides. 
The theory of types seems by no means to be an improvement 
on that of Plato, for he did not imagine the existence of any thing 
aherrant or degraded emanating from the Deity. “ The multi- 
plication of organs,” it is alleged, ‘‘ is a sign of imperfection.” 
Who,” it is also said, that observes that in proportion as 
pedate animals approach the human type^ their motions are accom- 
plished by fewer organs, — that man walks ore sublimi^ upon tioo 
legs; the majority of quadrupeds upon four; insects upon six ; the 
Arachnida apparently upon eight ; most Crustacea upon ten ; and 
the Myriapods and others upon many ; but will thence conclude 
that insects must precede the Arachnida and Crustacea ? ”* ere 
it not for the high and decided tone of piety which pervades the 
writings of all the disciples of this school, I should be strongly dis- 
posed to consider much of the preceding language as bordering 
on irreverence towards God, though I am very certain the con- 
trary was meant, and that this would have been expunged, had 
such an interpretation of it been deemed possible. I might be re-- 
ferred, indeed, to the Bible, where it is said, Whatsoever hath 
more feet,” (or as the margin reads it, doth multiply feet,”) 
“ amongst all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye 
shall not eat, for they are an abomination.”f This passage, 
however, has no allusion to what is imperfect or degraded ; but to 
what is to be held clean or unclean, fit or not fit, to be eaten. 
The authors repeat similar doctrines in various parts of their works, 
such as when they distinguish the mouths of insects, as “ perfect” 
and “ imperfect,” according as seven enumerated organs are pre- 
sent, or deficient.” J They further tell us, there are five kinds 
of imperfect mouth,” exemplified in the numerous species of flies, 
gnats, butterflies, &c. ; though these very organs here called im- 
perfect,” exhibit some of the most admirable displays of mecha- 
nical contrivance § to be found in the creation, as the authors well 
know. If I am told the epithet imperfect^ is a mere term, not 
meant to ascribe defect to the great Creator, I am certainly en- 
titled to say, that a more highly objectionable one could not have 
Kirby and Spence, Intr. iv. 374, ei seq. f Levit. xi. 42. 
I Kirby and Spence, Intr. iii. 417. § Zool. Jourii. i. 94. note. 
