10 
From these demonstrations, you will perceive that the Peyerian agminated 
follicles may be legitimately associated with the highly-developed compound 
lobulated glands, such as the sublinguals, the parotids, and the tonsils ; and the 
latter, again, may be regarded as morphologically analogous, and also serially 
homologous with the liver and pancreas. The remarkably capacious outlet 
of the tonsil in the Giraffe renders this mere comparison still more instructive 
and significant. 
There is yet another aspect in which the structure I have just 
described may be advantageously considered — a view which I have 
recently urged in the Anatomical Memoir communicated to the 
Zoological Society. I allude to it as an illustration of the value 
of anatomical research in relation to the determination of zoological 
affinity. The Giraffe is an animal admittedly aberrant and oscu- 
lant, partaking of characters more or less common to the cervine, 
antilopine, and cameline ruminants ; yet, here we have (in addition 
to the peculiar horns and partially distinctive^ cranial, lingual, and 
external modifications suited to the animal’s mode of existence) an 
entirely unique development connected with the digestive system. 
When, therefore, it is considered that this marked peculiarity is 
not known to be shared by the allied families above referred to, 
and that the complexity of the organ has arrived at a point far 
beyond the ordinary development of Peyer’s glands, I think it but 
fair that Zoologists should welcome the discovery of a structure 
which, whilst it lends aid to their definitions, justifies the recognition 
of the Giraffe as the type of a separate family. This argument loses 
none of its force from the circumstance that this separation has 
been advocated on other grounds, such as arise out of the presence 
of pseudo-keratophorous epiphyses associated with other superficial 
characters. 
In the tracing out of such relations consists the charm of 
Zoological pursuit, and this is a tendency common to all Natural 
History Sciences. On independent persuasion, therefore, I respect- 
fully argue that no viscus or system of tissues should be excluded 
from the characters employed in the determination of zoological 
affinity — certainly not, at least, when any marked deviation from a 
classic, ordinal, or generic type is sufficient to impart distinctive 
cogency to the balance of hypothetical analysis. The comparative 
perfection of our knowledge of the proper definitive allocation and 
relative position of organised beings — whether arranged in groups, 
species, or individualities — doubtless depends on the accuracy and 
grasp which an extended experience is calculated to supply ; but I 
also submit (and herein, you perceive, lies an argument for the 
wider diffusion of the Natural History Sciences) that no structural 
phenomena, great or small, external or internal, scarce or invariable, 
can be too unimportant to be carelessly eschewed. 
With restricted views and artificial classifications, therefore, the 
Biologist can have no sympathy. The Natural History Sciences 
must not be allowed each to resemble an eviscerated carcass, but 
their proportions should be shaped, and their constituent parts 
