suggested an hypothesis of organic progress which deservedly incurred
much ridicule, although it contained a glimmer of the truth. He
surmised, and endeavoured, with a great deal of ingenuity, to prove, that
one being advanced in the course of generations to another, in
consequence merely of its experience of wants calling for the exercise of
its faculties in a particular direction, by which exercise new
developments of organs took place, ending in variations sufficient to
constitute a new species. Thus he thought that a bird would be driven by
necessity to seek its food in the water, and that, in its efforts to
swim, the outstretching of its claws would lead to the expansion of the
intermediate membranes, and it would thus become web-footed. Now it is
possible that wants and the exercise of faculties have entered in some
manner into the production of the phenomena which we have been
considering; but certainly not in the way suggested by Lamarck, whose
whole notion is obviously so inadequate to account for the rise of the
organic kingdoms, that we only can place it with pity among the follies
of the wise. Had the laws of organic development been known in his time,
his theory might have been of a more imposing kind. It is upon these
that the present hypothesis is mainly founded. I take existing natural
means, and shew them to have been capable of producing all the existing
organisms, with the simple and easily conceivable aid of a higher
generative law, which we perhaps still see operating upon a limited
scale. I also go beyond the French philosopher to a very important
point, the original Divine conception of all the forms of being which
these natural laws were only instruments in working out and realizing.
The actuality of such a conception I hold to be strikingly demonstrated
by the discoveries of Macleay, Vigors, and Swainson, with respect to the
affinities and analogies of animal (and by implication vegetable)
organisms. {232} Such a regularity in the _structure_, as we may call
it, of the _classification of animals_, as is shewn in their systems, is
totally irreconcilable with the idea of form going on to form merely as
needs and wishes in the animals themselves dictated. Had such been the
case, all would have been irregular, as things arbitrary necessarily are.
But, lo, the whole plan of being is as symmetrical as the plan of a
house, or the laying out of an old-fashioned garden! This must needs
have been devised and arranged for beforehand. And what a preconception
or forethought have we here! Let us only for a moment consider how
various are the external physical conditions in which animals
live—climate, soil, temperature, land, water, air—the peculiarities of
food, and the various ways in which it is to be sought; the peculiar
circumstances in which the business of reproduction and the care-taking
of the young are to be attended to—all these required to be taken into
account, and thousands of animals were to be formed suitable in
organization and mental character for the concerns they were to have with
these various conditions and circumstances—here a tooth fitted for
crushing nuts; there a claw fitted to serve as a hook for suspension;
here to repress teeth and develop a bony net-work instead; there to
arrange for a bronchial apparatus, to last only for a certain brief time;
and all these animals were to be schemed out, each as a part of a great
range, which was on the whole to be rigidly regular: let us, I say, only
consider these things, and we shall see that the decreeing of laws to
bring the whole about was an act involving such a degree of wisdom and
device as we only can attribute, adoringly, to the one Eternal and
Unchangeable. It may be asked, how does this reflection comport with
that timid philosophy which would have us to draw back from the
investigation of God’s works, lest the knowledge of them should make us
undervalue his greatness and forget his paternal character? Does it not
rather appear that our ideas of the Deity can only be worthy of him in
the ratio in which we advance in a knowledge of his works and ways; and
that the acquisition of this knowledge is consequently an available means
of our growing in a genuine reverence for him!
But the idea that any of the lower animals have been concerned in any way
with the origin of man—is not this degrading? Degrading is a term,
expressive of a notion of the human mind, and the human mind is liable to
prejudices which prevent its notions from being invariably correct. Were
we acquainted for the first time with the circumstances attending the
production of an individual of our race, we might equally think them
degrading, and be eager to deny them, and exclude them from the admitted
truths of nature. Knowing this fact familiarly and beyond contradiction,
a healthy and natural mind finds no difficulty in regarding it
complacently. Creative Providence has been pleased to order that it
should be so, and it must therefore be submitted to. Now the idea as to
the progress of organic creation, if we become satisfied of its truth,
ought to be received precisely in this spirit. It has pleased Providence
to arrange that one species should give birth to another, until the
second highest gave birth to man, who is the very highest: be it so, it
is our part to admire and to submit. The very faintest notion of there
being anything ridiculous or degrading in the theory—how absurd does it
appear, when we remember that every individual amongst us actually passes
through the characters of the insect, the fish, and reptile, (to speak
nothing of others,) before he is permitted to breathe the breath of life!
But such notions are mere emanations of false pride and ignorant
prejudice. He who conceives them little reflects that they, in reality,
involve the principle of a contempt for the works and ways of God. For
it may be asked, if He, as appears, has chosen to employ inferior
organisms as a generative medium for the production of higher ones, even
including ourselves, what right have we, his humble creatures, to find
fault? There is, also, in this prejudice, an element of unkindliness
towards the lower animals, which is utterly out of place. These
creatures are all of them part products of the Almighty Conception, as
well as ourselves. All of them display wondrous evidences of his wisdom
and benevolence. All of them have had assigned to them by their Great
Father a part in the drama of the organic world, as well as ourselves.
Why should they be held in such contempt? Let us regard them in a proper
spirit, as parts of the grand plan, instead of contemplating them in the
light of frivolous prejudices, and we shall be altogether at a loss to
see how there should be any degradation in the idea of our race having
been genealogically connected with them.
MACLEAY SYSTEM OF ANIMATED NATURE.
THIS SYSTEM CONSIDERED IN CONNEXION WITH THE
PROGRESS OF ORGANIC CREATION, AND AS INDICATING
THE NATURAL STATUS OF MAN.
IT is now high time to advert to the system formed by the animated
tribes, both with a view to the possible illustration of the preceding
argument, and for the light which it throws upon that general system of
nature which it is the more comprehensive object of this book to
ascertain.
The vegetable and animal kingdoms are arranged upon a scale, starting
from simply organized forms, and going on to the more complex, each of
these forms being but slightly different from those next to it on both
sides. The lowest and most slightly developed forms in the two kingdoms
are so closely connected, that it is impossible to say where vegetable
ends and animal begins. United at what may be called their bases, they
start away in different directions, but not altogether to lose sight of
each other. On the contrary, they maintain a strict analogy throughout
the whole of their subsequent courses, sub-kingdom for sub-kingdom, class
for class; shewing a beautiful, though as yet obscure relation between
the two grand forms of being, and consequently a unity in the laws which
brought them both into existence. So complete does this analogy appear,
even in the present imperfect state of science, that I fully expect in a
few years to see the animal and vegetable kingdoms duly ranked up against
each other in a system of parallels, which will admit of our assigning to
each species in the former the particular shrub or tree corresponding to
it in the latter, all marked by unmistakable analogies of the most
interesting kind.
It is as yet but a few years since a system of subordinate analogies not
less remarkable began to be speculated upon as within the range of the
animal kingdom. Probably it also exists in the vegetable kingdom; but to
this point no direct attention has been given; so we are left to infer
that such is the case from theoretical considerations only. We are
indebted for what we know of these beautiful analogies to three
naturalists—Macleay, Vigors, and Swainson, whose labours tempt us to
dismiss in a great measure the artificial classifications hitherto used,
and make an entirely new conspectus of the animal kingdom, not to speak
of the corresponding reform which will be required in our systems of
botany also.
The Macleay system, as it may be called in honour of its principal
author, announces that, whether we take the whole animal kingdom, or any
definite division of it, we shall find that we are examining a group of
beings which is capable of being arranged along a series of close
affinities, _in a circular form_,—that is to say, starting from any one
portion of the group, when it is properly arranged, we can proceed from
one to another by minute gradations, till at length, having run through
the whole, we return to the point whence we set out. All natural groups
of animals are, therefore, in the language of Mr. Macleay, _circular_;
and the possibility of throwing any supposed group into a circular
arrangement is held as a decisive test of its being a real or natural
one. It is of course to be understood that each circle is composed of a
set of inferior circles: for example, a set of _tribe_ circles composes
an _order_; a set of _order_ circles, again, forms a _class_; and so on.
Of each group, the component circles are _invariably five in number_:
thus, in the animal kingdom, there are five sub-kingdoms,—the vertebrata,
annulosa, {239a} radiata, acrita, {239b} mollusca. Take, again, one of
these sub-kingdoms, the vertebrata, and we find it composed of five
classes,—the mammalia, reptilia, pisces, amphibia, and aves, each of the
other sub-kingdoms being similarly divisible. Take the mammalia, and it
is in like manner found to be composed of five orders,—the cheirotheria,
{239c} feræ, cetacea, glires, ungulata. Even in this numerical
uniformity, which goes down to the lowest ramifications of the system,
there would be something very remarkable, as arguing a definite and
preconceived arrangement; but this is only the least curious part of the
Macleay theory.
We shall best understand the wonderfully complex system of analogies
developed by that theory, if we start from the part of the kingdom in
which they were first traced,—namely, the class aves, or birds. This
gives for its five orders,—_incessores_, (perching birds,) _raptores_,
(birds of prey,) _natatores_, (swimming birds,) _grallatores_, (waders,)
_rasores_, (scrapers.) In these orders our naturalists discerned
distinct organic characters, of different degrees of perfectness, the
first being the most perfect with regard to the general character of the
class, and therefore the best representative of that class; whence it was
called the _typical_ order. The second was found to be inferior, or
rather to have a less perfect balance of qualities; hence it was
designated the _sub-typical_. In this are comprehended the chief noxious
and destructive animals of the circle to which it belongs. The other
three groups were called aberrant, as exhibiting a much wider departure
from the typical standard, although the last of the three is observed to
make a certain recovery, and join on to the typical group, so as to
complete the circle. The first of the aberrant groups (natatores) is
remarkable for making the water the theatre of its existence, and the
birds composing it are in general of comparatively large bulk. The
second (grallatores) are long-limbed and long-billed, that they may wade
and pick up their subsistence in the shallows and marshes in which they
chiefly live. The third (rasores) are distinguished by strong feet, for
walking or running on the ground, and for scraping in it for their food;
also by wings designed to scarcely raise them off the earth and, farther,
by a general domesticity of character and usefulness to man.
Now the most remarkable circumstance is, that these organic characters,
habits, and moral properties, were found to be traceable more or less
distinctly in the corresponding portions of every other group, even of
those belonging to distant subdivisions of the animal kingdom, as, for
instance, the insects. The incessores (typical order of aves) being
reduced to its constituent circles or tribes, it was found that these
strictly represented the five orders. In the _conirostres_ are the
perfections which belong to the incessores as an order, with the
conspicuous external feature of a comparatively small notch in their
bills; in the _dentirostres_, the notch is strong and toothlike, (hence
the name of the tribe) assimilating them to the raptores; the
_fissirostres_ come into analogy with the natatores in the slight
development of their feet and their great powers of flight; the
_tenuirostres_ have the small mouths and long soft bills of the
grallatores. Finally, the _scansores_ resemble the rasores in their
superior intelligence and docility, and in their having strong limbs and
a bill entire at the tip. This parity of qualities becomes clearer when
placed in a tabular form:—
_Orders of Birds_. _Characters_. _Tribes of
Incessores_.
Incessores Most perfect of their Conirostres.
circle; notch of bill
small
Raptores Notch of bill like a Dentirostres.
tooth
Natatores Slightly developed Fissirostres.
feet; strong flight
Grallatores Small mouths; long Tenuirostres.
soft bills
Rasores Strong feet, short Scansores.
wings; docile and
domestic
Some comprehensive terms are much wanted to describe these five
characters, so curiously repeated throughout the whole of the animal, and
probably also the vegetable kingdom. Meanwhile, Mr. Swainson calls them
typical, sub-typical, natatorial, suctorial, {242} and rasorial. Some of
his illustrations of the principle are exceedingly interesting. He shews
that the leading animal of a typical circle usually has a combination of
properties concentrated in itself, without any of these preponderating
remarkably over others. The sub-typical circles, he says, “do not
comprise the largest individuals in bulk, but always those which are the
most powerfully armed, either for inflicting injury on their own class,
for exciting terror, producing injury, or creating annoyance to man.
Their dispositions are often sanguinary, since the forms most conspicuous
among them live by rapine, and subsist on the blood of other animals.
They are, in short, symbolically types of _evil_.” This symbolical
character is most conspicuous about the centre of the series of
gradations:—
Kingdom Annulosa.
Sub-kingdom Reptilia.
Class (Mammalia) Feræ.
(Aves) Raptores.
In the annulosa it is not distinct, although we must also remember that
insects do produce enormous ravages and annoyance in many parts of the
earth. In the reptilia it is more distinct, since to this class belong
the ophidia, (serpents,) an order peculiarly noxious. It comes to a kind
of climax in the feræ and raptores, which fulfil the function of butchers
among land animals. As we descend through tribes, families, genera,
species, it becomes fainter and fainter, but never altogether vanishes.
In the dentirostres, for instance, we have in a subdued form the hooked
bill and predaceous character of the raptores; to this tribe belongs the
family of the shrikes, so deadly to all the lesser field birds. In the
genus bos, we have, in the sub-typical group, the bison, “wild,
revengeful, and shewing an innate detestation of man.” In equus, we
have, in the same situation, the zebra, which actually shews the stripes
of the tiger, and is as remarkable for its wildness as its congeners, the
horse and ass, are for their docility and usefulness. To quote again
from Mr. Swainson, “the singular threatening aspect which the
caterpillars of the sphinx moth assume on being disturbed, is a
remarkable modification of the terrific or evil nature which is impressed
in one form or another, palpable or remote, upon all sub-typical groups;
for this division of the lepidopterous order is precisely of this
denomination. In the pre-eminent type of this order of insects, the
butterflies, (papilionides,) our associations little prepare us for
expecting any trace of the evil principle; but here, too, there is a
sub-typical division. These,” says our naturalist, “are distinguished by
their caterpillars being armed with formidable spines or prickles, which
in general are possessed of some highly acrimonious or poisonous quality,
capable of injuring those who touch them. It is only,” continues Mr.
Swainson, “when extensive researches bring to light a uniformity of
results, that we can venture to believe they are so universal as to
deserve being ranked as primary laws. Thus, when a celebrated
entomologist denounced as impure the black and lurid beetles forming the
saprophagous petalocera of Mr. Macleay, a tribe living only upon putrid
vegetable matter, and hiding themselves in their disgusting food, or in
dark hollows of the earth, neither of these celebrated men suspected the
absolute fact, elicited from our analogies of this group, that this very
tribe constituted the sub-typical group of one of the primary divisions
of coleopterous insects: nor had they any suspicion that, by the filthy
habits and repulsive forms of these beetles, nature had intended that
they should be types or emblems of hundreds of other groups,
distinguished by peculiarities equally indicative of evil. On the other
hand, the thalerophagous petalocera, forming the typical group of the
same division, present us with all the perfections and habits belonging
to their kind. These families of beetles live only upon fresh
vegetables; they are diurnal, and sport in the glare of day, pure in
their food, elegant in their shapes, and beautiful in their colours.”
{246}
The third type, (first of the three aberrant,) called by Mr. Swainson,
the _natatorial_, or aquatic, are chiefly remarkable for their bulk, the
disproportionate size of the head, and the absence, or slight development
of the feet. They partake of the predaceous and destructive character of
the adjoining sub-typical group, and the means of their predacity are
generally found in the mouth alone. In the primary division of the
animal kingdom, we find the type in the radiata, not one of which lives
out of water. In the vertebrata, it is in the fishes. In both of these,
feet are totally wanting. Descending to the class mammalia, we have this
type in the cetacea, which present a comparatively slight development of
limbs. In the aves, as we have seen, the type is presented in the
natatores, whose name has been adopted as an appropriate term for all the
corresponding groups. An enumeration of some other examples of the
natatorial type, as the cephalopoda (instanced in the cuttle-fish) in the
mollusca; the crustacea (crabs, &c.) in the annulosa; the owls (which
often duck for fish) in the raptores; the ichthyosaurus, plesiosaurus,
&c., among reptilia, will serve to bring the general character, and its
pervasion of the whole animal world, forcibly before the mind of the
reader.
The next type is that of meanest and most imperfect organization, the
lower termination of all groups, as the typical is the upper. It is
called by Mr. Swainson the suctorial, from a very generally prevalent
peculiarity, that of drawing sustenance by suction. The acrita, or
polypes, among the sub-kingdoms; the intestina, among the annulosa; the
tortoises, among the reptilia; the armadillo and scaly ant-eater, pig,
mouse, jerboa, and kangaroo, among quadrupeds; the waders and
tenuirostres, among birds; the coleoptera, (bug, louse, flea, &c.) among
insects; the gastrobranchus, among fishes; are examples which will
illustrate the special characters of this type. These are smallness,
particularly in the head and mouth, feebleness, and want of offensive
protection, defect of organs of mastication, considerable powers of swift
movement, and (often) a parasitic mode of living; while of negative
qualities, there are, besides, indisposition to domestication, and an
unsuitableness to serve as human food.
The rasorial type comprehends most of the animals which become
domesticated and useful to man, as, first, the fowls which give a name to
the type, the ungulata, and more particularly the ruminantia, among
quadrupeds, and the dog among the feræ. Gentleness, familiarity with
man, and a peculiar approach to human intelligence, are the leading
mental characteristics of animals of this type. Amongst external
characters, we generally find power of limbs and feet for locomotion on
land, (to which the rasorial type is confined,) abundant tail and
ornaments for the head, whether in the form of tufts, crests, horns, or
bony excrescences. In the animal kingdom, the mollusca are the rasorial
type, which, however, only shews itself there in their soft and sluggish
character, and their being very generally edible. In the ptilota, or
winged insects, the hymenopterous are the rasorial type, and it is not
therefore surprising to find amongst them the ants and bees, “the most
social, intelligent, and in the latter case, most useful to man, of all
the annulose animals.”
As yet the speculations on representation are imperfect, in consequence
of the novelty of the doctrine, and the defective state of our knowledge
of animated nature. It has, however, been so fully proved in the aves,
and traced so clearly in other parts of the animal kingdom, and as a
general feature of that part of nature, that hardly a doubt can exist of
its being universally applicable. Even in the lowly forms of the acrita,
(polypes,) the suctorial type of the animal kingdom, representation has
been discerned, and with some remarkable results as to the history of our
world. The acrita were the first forms of animal life upon earth, the
starting point of that great branch of organization. Now, this
sub-kingdom consists, like the rest, of five groups, (classes,) and these
are respectively representations of the acrita itself, and the other four
sub-kingdoms, which had not come into existence when the acrita were
formed. The polypi vaginati, in the crustaceous covering of the living
mass, and their more or less articulated structure, represent the
_annulosa_. In the radiated forms of the rotifera, and the simple
structure of the polypi rudes, we are reminded of the _radiata_. The
_mollusca_ are typified in the soft, mucous, sluggish intestina. And,
finally, in the fleshy living mass which surrounds the bony and hollow
axis of the polypi natantes, we have a sketch of the _vertebrata_. The
acrita thus appear as a prophecy of the higher events of animal
development. They shew that the nobler orders of being, including man
himself, were contemplated from the first, and came into existence by
virtue of a law, the operation of which had commenced ages before their
forms were realized.
The system of representation is therefore to be regarded as _a powerful
additional proof of the hypothesis of organic progress by virtue of law_.
It establishes the unity of animated nature and the definite character of
its entire constitution. It enables us to see how, under the flowing
robes of nature, where all looks arbitrary and accidental, there is an
artificiality of the most rigid kind. The natural, we now perceive,
sinks into and merges in a Higher Artificial. To adopt a comparison more
apt than dignified, we may be said to be placed here as insects are in a
garden of the old style. Our first unassisted view is limited, and we
perceive only the irregularities of the minute surface, and single shrubs
which appear arbitrarily scattered. But our view at length extending and
becoming more comprehensive, we begin to see parterres balancing each
other, trees, statues, and arbours placed symmetrically, and that the
whole is an assemblage of parts mutually reflective. It can scarcely be
necessary to point to the inference hence arising with regard to the
origination of nature in some Power, of which man’s mind is a faint and
humble representation. The insects of the garden, supposing them to be
invested with reasoning power, and aware how artificial are their own
works, might of course very reasonably conclude that, being in its
totality an artificial object, the garden was the work of some maker or
artificer. And so also must we conclude, when we attain a knowledge of
the artificiality which is at the basis of nature, that nature is wholly
the production of a Being resembling, but infinitely greater than
ourselves.
Organic beings are, then, bound together in development, and in a system
of both affinities and analogies. Now, it will be asked, does this agree
with what we know of the geographical distribution of organic beings, and
of the history of organic progress as delineated by geology? Let us
first advert to the geographical question.