FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343  
344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   >>   >|  
state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade, or that of a species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters, is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the males and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes, when adult, and yet no one dreams of separating them. The naturalist includes as one species the several larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult; as he likewise includes the so-called alternate generations of Steenstrup, which can only in a technical sense be considered as the same individual. He includes monsters; he includes varieties, not solely because they closely resemble the parent-form, but because they are descended from it. He who believes that the cowslip is descended from the primrose, or conversely, ranks them together as a single species, and gives a single definition. As soon as three Orchidean forms (Monochanthus, Myanthus, and Catasetum), which had previously been ranked as three distinct genera, were known to be sometimes produced on the same spike, they were immediately included as a single species. But it may be asked, what ought we to do, if it could be proved that one species of kangaroo had been produced, by a long course of modification, from a bear? Ought we to rank this one species with bears, and what should we do with the other species? The supposition is of course preposterous; and I might answer by the argumentum ad hominem, and ask what should be done if a perfect kangaroo were seen to come out of the womb of a bear? According to all analogy, it would be ranked with bears; but then assuredly all the other species of the kangaroo family would have to be classed under the bear genus. The whole case is preposterous; for where there has been close descent in common, there will certainly be close resemblance or affinity. As descent has universally been used in classing together the individuals of the same species, though the males and females and larvae are sometimes extremely different; and as it has been used in classing varieties which have undergone a certain, and sometimes a considerable amount of modification, may not this same element of descent have been unconsciously used in grouping species under genera, and genera under higher groups, though in these cases
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343  
344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

species

 

includes

 
descent
 

single

 

genera

 
kangaroo
 
naturalist
 
modification
 

individual

 

varieties


preposterous
 

ranked

 

differ

 
descended
 
produced
 
common
 
classing
 

hominem

 

answer

 
argumentum

proved

 

supposition

 

larvae

 

extremely

 

females

 
individuals
 

affinity

 

universally

 

undergone

 

considerable


higher

 

groups

 
grouping
 

unconsciously

 

amount

 

element

 

resemblance

 
According
 

perfect

 

analogy


classed

 

assuredly

 

family

 

primrose

 

dreams

 
separating
 
cirripedes
 

larval

 

stages

 

called