FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203  
204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   >>   >|  
sub-families, families, &c., &c., has been quite arbitrary{438}; without the clearest definition, how can it be possible to decide whether two groups of species are of equal value, and of what value? whether they should both be called genera or families; or whether one should be a genus, and the other a family{439}? {437} _Origin_, Ed. i. pp. 419, 427, vi. pp. 575, 582. {438} This is discussed from the point of view of divergence in the _Origin_, Ed. i. pp. 420, 421, vi. pp. 576, 577. {439} <Footnote by the author.> I discuss this because if Quinarism true, I false. <The Quinary System is set forth in W. S. Macleay's _Horae Entomologicae_, 1821.> _On the kind of relation between distinct groups._ I have only one other remark on the affinities of organic beings; that is, when two quite distinct groups approach each other, the approach is _generally_ generic{440} and not special; I can explain this most easily by an example: of all Rodents the Bizcacha, by certain peculiarities in its reproductive system, approaches nearest to the Marsupials; of all Marsupials the Phascolomys, on the other hand, appears to approach in the form of its teeth and intestines nearest to the Rodents; but there is no special relation between these two genera{441}; the Bizcacha is no nearer related to the Phascolomys than to any other Marsupial in the points in which it approaches this division; nor again is the Phascolomys, in the points of structure in which it approaches the Rodents, any nearer related to the Bizcacha than to any other Rodent. Other examples might have been chosen, but I have given (from Waterhouse) this example as it illustrates another point, namely, the difficulty of determining what are analogical or adaptive and what real affinities; it seems that the teeth of the Phascolomys though _appearing closely_ to resemble those of a Rodent are found to be built on the Marsupial type; and it is thought that these teeth and consequently the intestines may have been adapted to the peculiar life of this animal and therefore may not show any real relation. The structure in the Bizcacha that connects it with the Marsupials does not seem a peculiarity related to its manner of life, and I imagine that no one would doubt that this shows a real affinity, though not more with any one Marsupial species than with another. The difficulty of determining what relations are real and what analogical is far
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203  
204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

families

 

Origin

 
discussed
 

divergence

 

Quinarism


discuss

 

definition

 

species

 

decide

 
groups

clearest
 

family

 

arbitrary

 
called
 
genera