with reference to the palms; but show no tendency to a generalization of the observation. SECTION III. Opinions of the Ancients on the Organization and Classification of Animals. Ir appears from what has been said in the preceding section, that in mineralogy and botany we scarcely find among the ancients the slightest indications of those comprehensive systems, in the construction of which the last and present centuries have been principally instrumental. Not so in the animal kingdom. In this branch of science the true principles of classification seem to have been almost as clearly understood in the age of Aristotle, as at the present day: and, in order to enable the reader to judge of the truth of this assertion, I propose to offer a short and cursory analysis of that work of Aristotle which is entitled Пgì Zawy IoTogías; comparing it at the same time with similar modern works, and particularly with that of Cuvier entitled, "Le Règne Animal, distribué d'après son Organization," which was published in Paris in the year 1817, in four octavo volumes.† I shall not stop to inquire whether the work of Aristotle is to be considered as containing the result of his own observations only, or whether he has collected into one body all that had been observed by others as well as himself; which last supposition, however, is probably the true state of the case. But * It will be convenient here to state, that the edition to which references will be made in the following pages is that of Bekker, Berlin, 1829, 8vo. A new edition of this work was published in 1829, but the preface of the first is retained without any important alteration, and indeed with scarcely any alteration at all. Nor are the alterations, or additions, which have been made in the body of the work, of such a nature as to affect the present comparison. in order to illustrate the magnitude of such an undertaking, and the difficulties attendant on it, even in the present splendid era of philosophical discovery, I need only refer to the following acknowledgment of Cuvier, Aristotle's great rival in this department of natural science, contained in the preface of the "Règne Animal." He there at once confesses, with reference to his own work, that it would have been utterly impossible for any insulated individual, however long his life, and however great his leisure, to complete a systematic classification of animals on the principle of conformity of structure (which, it should be observed, is Aristotle's leading principle as well as his own ;) that he should not even have been enabled to offer the present simple sketch, had not the advantages of his situation compensated for his want of time and talent. Surrounded as he was by so many accomplished Naturalists; deriving information from their works at the moment of their publication; and having as free access to their collections as to his own; a great part of his labour necessarily consisted, he affirms, in the application of so many and such rich materials to his present essay. He accordingly acknowledges his obligations to Geoffroy, Levaillant, Oppel and Blainville, Lacepede, and Lamarck, in the respective departments of quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fish, and testaceous animals; all which classes of animals are described in the two first volumes of his work. And he particularly expresses his obligations to Latreille, who furnished him with the entire third volume of the "Règne Animal," containing the arrangement of crustaceous animals, (lobsters, &c.;) the arachnida, (spiders, &c.) and insects. Of his fourth and last volume he speaks in such brief terms as the nature of its contents requires: for, inasmuch as it only contains a compressed account of those animals whose history is very obscure, either from the mi *Preface, p. ix, x. nuteness of their size, or from our ignorance of their habits and modes of life, it is necessarily very short in itself, and concise in its details.† It is clearly immaterial, on the present occasion, whether the work of Aristotle, which we are about to examine, be entirely his own, or only a systematic exposition of the opinions and knowledge of others; for, on either supposition, it is evidently a representation, on the authority of which we may fairly rely, of the general amount of knowledge accessible to the contemporaries of Aristotle, in that department of natural science: and as, with even still greater confidence, we may rely on Cuvier's work, as a similar representation of the existing state of knowledge in the same department, I may safely refer to it as a standard of comparison with reference to the knowledge and opinions of the moderns. In attempting to give an account of Aristotle's views, it is prudent to state that it has been collected from numerous and various notices distributed very irregularly throughout the body of his work; so that it is scarcely possible to be confident of having given the correct reference in every instance. It is prudent to make this statement, lest any of my readers should be led, in consequence of an incorrect reference, to doubt the fidelity of the representation here given, from the difficulty of meeting with the original passage. This difficulty is perhaps greater in the case of Aristotle, at least with respect to the work in question, than in the case of most other authors, in consequence of what may be called his Pindaric style of digression; which is occasionally so abrupt as to be at first view ludicrous. Thus, in comparing the kidney of the turtle with that of the ox, he suddenly illustrates his subject by observing that the viscera of the bonassus also (an animal not very like a turtle) resemble those of the ox. ("Exe, dè xai ò ßóvaròs rà ivròs ätarra öμora Bot. P. 45.) And, again, in the *Preface, p. xi. midst of a whole page descriptive of snakes, when speaking of their cloven tongue, he abruptly says that the seal (an animal not more like a snake than the bonassus the turtle) also has a cloven tongue. Έχει δὲ καὶ ἡ φώκη ἐσχισμένην τὴν γλῶτταν. Ρ. 48.) It may however be presumed that, in these, as in many other instances, not only of this but of many other of his works, the text has been vitiated or interpolated. Indeed some of the opinions expressed in the work are so opposed to the acknowledged physiological acuteness of its author, that they cannot be consistently admitted to have originated with him: and such, assuredly, is the solution offered in explanation of the phenomenon to which allusion is made in the proverb, ἀεὶ Λιβύη φέρει τι καινόν: respecting which he says, "that, in consequence of the want of rain in Lybia, animals of all kinds congregate wherever there is water; and that, being rendered tame by thirst, all those individuals which, though of different species, are nearly of the same size, and which go with young for nearly the same period, breed together, and produce new forms." (Πολυμορφότατα δὲ (τὰ ζῷα) ἐν τῇ Λιβύη-διὰ γὰρ τὴν ἀνομ βρίαν μίσγεσθαι δοκεῖ ἀπαντῶντα πρὸς τὰ ὑδάτια, καὶ τὰ μὴ ὁμόφυλα, καὶ ἐκφέρειν ὧν οἱ χρόνοι οἱ τῆς κυήσεως οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὰ μεγέθη μὴ πολὺ ἀπ' ἀλλήλων· πρὸς ἄλληλα δὲ πραΰνεται διὰ τὴν τοῦ ποτοῦ χρείαν. Ρ. 248.) With reference to animal life in general, Aristotle notices the gradual advances made by nature from the state of inanimate matter to that of living beings; whence there arises a difficulty in ascertaining the common boundary of the two divisions. And he then observes that, in the scale of material existence, plants immediately succeed to lifeless forms of matter; and that although among plants the degree of the living power is "various, some being indued with a greater portion of it than others; yet, considered collectively, plants represent as it were a middle term between animals and all other bodies; appearing as indued with life, in comparison with all other forms of matter, but devoid of life in comparison with animals. The change from the vegetable to the animal nature is as grudual, as from inanimate to vegetable matter: for there are some marine productions, of which it is difficult to affirm whether they are animal or vegetable; since they permanently adhere to the spot where they are found, and cannot be separated from it without perishing; and they manifest very obscure, if any, signs of sensation. Indeed the whole class of testaceous animals can scarcely be considered as superior to plants, when compared with those animals which are indued with the power of moving from place to place." (Οὕτω δ ̓ ἐκ τῶν ἀψύχων εἰς τὰ ζῷα μεταβαίνει κατὰ μικρὸν ἡ φύσις, ὥστε τῇ συνεχεία λανθάνειν τὸ μεθόριον αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ μέσον ποτέρων ἐστίν· μετὰ γὰρ τὸ τῶν ἀψύχων γένος τὸ τῶν φυτῶν πρῶτον ἐστίν· καὶ τούτων ἕτερον πρὸς ἕτερον διαφέρει τῷ μᾶλλον δοκεῖν μετέ χειν ζωῆς, ὅλον δὲ τὸ γένος πρὸς μὲν τἆλλα σώματα φαίνεται σχεδὸν ὥσπερ ἔμψυχον, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῶν ζῴων ἄψυχον. ἡ δὲ μετάβασις ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰς τὰ ζῷα συνεχής ἐστιν—ἔνια γὰρ τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάττη δια πορήσειεν ἄν τις πότερον ζῷόν ἐστιν ἢ φυτόν· προσπέφυκε γὰρ, καὶ χωριζόμενα πολλὰ διαφθείρεται τῶν τοιούτων—ὅλος δὲ πᾶν τὸ γένος τὸ τῶν ὀστρακοδέρμων φυτοῖς ἔοικε πρὲς τὰ πορευτικὰ τῶν ζῴων. καὶ περὶ αἰσθήσεως, τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν οὐδὲ ἓν σημαίνεται. Ρ. 212, 213.) "Again, if we regard the substance of the lower species of marine bodies, though in some instances, as in sea nettles, it approaches to the character of flesh; in others, as in sponge, it closely resembles a vegetable matter. And, lastly, as different bodies appear to partake, in different degrees, of life itself; so do they differ with respect to the degrees of activity in the functions of life. Plants, for instance, seem to be incapable of effecting much beyond their individual nutrition, and the continuation of their species: and the same observation holds with respect to the lowest species of animals. By the addition of sensibility in different degrees, the pleasure and activity of life are increased; first in the gratification arising from mutual intercourse; and further, in the |