214 Biological Controversy and its Laws . [April, 
the great Quinarian excluded man altogether from the zoolo- 
gical circle proclaiming his structural resemblance to the 
apes, — relations not of affinity, but merely of analogy, and 
consequently of no value in determining his rank in the 
scale of Nature. To him man was not the highest animal, 
not “ an animal and something more,” but the lowest, aber- 
rant, member of the spiritual kingdom. Such a doctrine 
might be hard to substantiate, but it was no less hard to 
refute, and must at all events be pronounced self-consistent. 
Mr. Mivart takes up different ground. He admits man to 
be an animal, but yet proclaims him to be an animal differing 
more widely from those nearest him in structure, such as the 
gorilla, than they do from the unorganised lifeless sand beneath 
their feet. This somewhat sensational deliverance occurs, 
in substance, more than once, so that it is no mere casual 
inadvertence. Let us look more clearly into its meaning. 
Let A denote inorganic matter, B the vegetable world, and 
C the animal kingdom. In the class C occurs a certain 
form, c, which differs more widely from the other members 
of the class, a, b, d, &c., than they do from B, or even 
from A. What kind of classification is this ? If c differs 
thus widely from everything else contained in C, we doubt 
its right to be included in that class at all. Let us take a 
few instances : — Suppose a curvilinear figure differing more 
widely from other curvilinear figures than they do in turn 
from rectilineal figures ; suppose a crystal differing more 
from other crystals than they do from amorphous matter ; 
suppose an. acid differing more widely from other acids than 
they do from bases ; suppose a triad differing more widely 
from other triads than they do from dyads or tetrads ; sup- 
pose a shade of red differing more widely from other shades 
of red than they do from yellows or blues ; suppose a bird 
differing more widely from other birds than they do from 
mammals ! Let our readers, if they can, suppose some, 
any, or all of this, and they will be in a position to under- 
stand and appreciate Mr. Mivart’s exposition of man’s rank 
in creation. We fear that if any of the “ Agnostics” had 
made a statement half so peculiar it might have received a 
notice more outspoken than courteous. 
Mr. Mivart makes no attempt to base the distinction be- 
tween man and the lower animals upon points of structure, 
— in short, upon anything visible. He is far too profoundly 
versed in animal morphology to make such an attempt. 
Nay, in a most interesting little work, he has declared that 
the structure of the frog is by far more isolated and excep- 
tional, with reference to other forms of animal life, than is 
