Grallæ, is longer in proportion to its thickness than in _Didus_; the
epicnemial process rises higher above and projects further in front of
the condylar surfaces before it divides into the pro- and ectocnemial
plates; and these are relatively more produced. The fibular ridge is
shorter in proportion to the length of the tibia, is more prominent,
and more parallel with the axis of the shaft. The distal condyles
project further backward than in _Didus_. The tibia in _Charadrius_,
_Otis_, _Tantalus_, _Grus_, _Ciconia_, _Mycteria_, _Porphyrio_, opposes
similar or equivalent differences to those in _Œdicnemus_, against the
affinity of _Didus_ to any of those Grallæ.
In the comparison of the tibia of this extinct flightless bird with
that of the _Cnemiornis_, the wonderful development of the plates
and processes at the proximal end of the bones in the New Zealand
bird is strikingly manifested. In _Cnemiornis_ the fibular ridge runs
in a line with the shaft, and does not incline from above obliquely
forward as in _Didus_ and the Doves; the ridge on the outer side of the
distal fourth of the bone is stronger and sharper in _Cnemiornis_; the
tendinal canal is transversely elliptical, medial in position, with a
slight inward inclination; the intercondyloid fossa is much wider in
_Cnemiornis_. The differences, indeed, in all the characters of the
tibia, as compared with _Didus_, in the Vultures, Plovers, Penguins,
and terrestrial flightless birds tend to render more instructive
and convincing the resemblances which Pigeons present in the same
characters to the extinct Mauritian bird.
§ 4. _Conclusion._
The affinities or place in nature of the Dodo being thus determined by
the characters of its skeleton, but few words remain to be said on the
bearings of present knowledge of this species upon other zoological
generalizations.
The researches and observations of naturalists have been carried out to
such an extent as to support the conclusion that the _Didus ineptus_
does not now live in any part of the world, and that it never existed
save in that part of which the island of Mauritius may be a remnant.
Consequently the species there originated; and the most intelligible
conception of its mode of origin is that to which I have alluded in the
description of the brain-case (p. 39).
The Dodo exemplifies Buffon’s idea[40] of the origin of species
through departure from a more perfect original type by degeneration;
and the known consequences of the disuse of one locomotive organ and
extra use of another indicate the nature of the secondary causes that
may have operated in the creation of this species of bird, agreeably
with Lamarck’s philosophical conception of the influence of such
physiological conditions of atrophy and hypertrophy[41]. The young of
all Doves are hatched with wings as small as in the Dodo: that species
retained the immature character. The main condition making possible the
production and continuance of such a species in the island of Mauritius
was the absence of any animal that could kill a great bird incapable
of flight. The introduction of such a destroyer became fatal to the
species which had lost such means of escape[42]. The Mauritian Doves
(_Columba nitidissima_ and _C. meyeri_) that retained their powers of
flight continue to exist there.
As I have no reason to offer why one kind of Pigeon should have
retained and another lost its powers of flight, nor am able to adduce a
particle of evidence of the hypothetical degrees of diminution of the
wing-bones to their stunted proportions in _Didus_, any more than in
_Dinornis_, I feel that in the foregoing remarks I lay myself open to
the rebuke of fellow-labourers who may think with the able authors who
last treated of the present subject.
They warn their readers to “beware of attributing anything like
_imperfection_ to these anomalous organisms, however deficient they may
be in those complicated structures which we so much admire in other
creatures. Each animal and plant has received its peculiar organization
for the purpose, not of exciting the admiration of other beings, but
of sustaining its own existence. Its perfection, therefore, consists,
not in the number or complication of its organs, but in the adaptation
of its whole structure to the external circumstances in which it is
destined to live. And, in this point of view, we shall find that every
department of the organic creation is equally perfect, the humblest
animalcule or the simplest conferva being as completely organized with
reference to its appropriate habitat and its destined functions as Man
himself, who claims to be lord of all. Such a view of the creation is
surely more philosophical than the crude and profane ideas entertained
by Buffon and his disciples”[43].
Nevertheless the truth, as we have or feel it, should be told. In
the end it may prove to be the more acceptable service. The _Didus
ineptus_, L., through its degenerate or imperfect structure, howsoever
acquired, has perished. What have the stigmatizers of Buffon to offer
in lieu of his theory as applied to the origin of this species of bird?
They begin by asking, “Why does the whale possess the germs of teeth
which are never used for mastication? and why was the Dodo endowed
with wings at all, when those wings were useless for locomotion?
This question,” they own, “is too wide and too deep to plunge into
at present.” They nevertheless proceed to remark, “These apparently
anomalous facts are really the indications of laws which the Creator
has been pleased to follow in the construction of organized beings;
they are inscriptions in an unknown hieroglyphic, which we are quite
sure mean _something_, but of which we have scarcely begun to master
the alphabet. There appear, however, reasonable grounds for believing
that the Creator has assigned to each class of animals a definite
type or structure, from which He has never departed, even in the most
exceptional or eccentric modifications of form. Thus, if we suppose,
for instance, that the abstract idea of a Mammal implied the presence
of teeth, and the idea of a Bird the presence of wings, we may then
comprehend why in the Whale and the Dodo these organs are merely
_suppressed_, not wholly _annihilated_”[44].
This notion of type-forms or centres, unfortunately, has not merely
relation to abstract biological speculations or theories, but to
practical questions on which the true progress of Natural History
vitally depends. If such types do exist, the National Museum, it is
argued, may be restricted to their exhibition: and so our legislators
and the public were assured by the Professor of Natural History in
the Government School of Mines[45], when the question was before the
“House” four years ago. I have let slip no suitable occasion[46]
to combat and expose what has seemed to me to be both an erroneous
and mischievous view, most obstructive to the best interests of the
science; and, standing alone as I seemed to do on this point in the
array of evidence before the “Parliamentary Committee on the British
Museum, 1860,” I was glad to find my views on type-forms adopted
and paraphrased by the President of the British Association in his
Inaugural Address at the Meeting at Nottingham[47], in the present year.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
PLATE I.
Ideal Scene in the island of Mauritius before its discovery, in 1598,
by the Dutch, founded on:—
Fig. 1. Picture of the Dodo, by Roelandt Savery, 1626, in the
Royal Gallery of Berlin.
Fig. 2. Fac-simile of R. Savery’s Picture of the Dodo, in the
possession of the late Wm. J. Broderip, Esq., F.R.S. (no
date).
Fig. 3. Picture of the Dodo, by R. Savery, 1628, in the
Imperial Collection of the Belvedere, Vienna.
Each figure is coloured, and of the exact size, as in the
original paintings.
PLATE II.
Two views of the Dodlet (_Didunculus strigirostris_, Peale;
_Gnathodon_, Jardine), natural size, from the living
bird, obtained at the Samoan or Navigators’ Islands,
and transmitted from Sydney, New South Wales, by
George Bennett, M.D., F.L.S.[48], to the Gardens of
the Zoological Society of London, in 1864, where the
paintings, of which the above are fac-similes, were made
for the present work. A sketch of the dried head of the
Dodo in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, of rather less than
half the natural size, is introduced into the picture,
now in the Author’s possession[49].
PLATE III.
Fig. 1. Side view of the skeleton of the Dodo (_Didus
ineptus_, L.), with an outline of the bird as represented
in the oil-painting presented to the British Museum by
Edwards, Naturalist and Librarian of the Royal Society,
into whose possession it came at the decease, in 1753,
of Sir Hans Sloane, P.R.S., with the statement, or
tradition, that the painting had been made, of the
natural size, from a living specimen of the Dodo, in
Holland. The bones represented in profile, of the natural
size[50], testify to the accuracy of the form and
proportions of the Dodo given in the painting.
Fig. 2. An outline of the Samoan Dove or Dodlet (_Didunculus
strigirostris_, Peale; _Gnathodon strigirostris_,
Jardine[51]), of the natural size, from the specimen sent
by Dr. G. Bennett, and living, in 1864, in the Gardens
of the Zoological Society of London, with a view of the
skeleton, corresponding with that of the Dodo.
PLATE IV.
Fig. 1. Front view of the fourth (or first of the three
confluent) dorsal vertebræ (centrum and neural arch).
Fig. 2. Vertebral rib, or pleurapophysis, of the same
vertebra, front view.
Fig. 3. Sternal rib, or hæmapophysis, of the same vertebra:
_a_, outer side; _b_, upper or pleural end; _c_, lower or
sternal end; _d_, front margin; _e_, inner surface.
Fig. 4. Front view of sternum, or connate mass of hæmal
spines, including that of the same (fourth dorsal)
vertebra.
Fig. 5. Inner surface of an anterior pleurapophysis, with
coalesced appendage, _a_.
Fig. 6. Oblique view of ditto, ditto.
Fig. 7. Anterior pleurapophysis, with appendage, _a_, front
view: _c_, capitular end; _d_, tubercular end; _f_, hæmal
end; 7 _a_, outer surface; 7 _b_, inner surface.
Fig. 8. An anterior pleurapophysis, front view.
Fig. 9. Posterior surface of the upper end of a posterior
pleurapophysis: 9 _a_, body and lower end of ditto.
Fig. 10. Part of a pleurapophysis which has been broken and
healed.
Fig. 11. Lower end of a posterior dorsal pleurapophysis, with
connate rudiment of appendage, _a_.
Fig. 12. Hæmapophysis.
PLATE V[52].
Fig. 1. Fourth, fifth, and sixth dorsal vertebræ, anchylosed,
side view.
Fig. 2. Ditto, ditto, upper view.
Fig. 3. Ditto, ditto, under view.
Fig. 4. Ditto, ditto, back view.
Fig. 5. Ditto, ditto, mutilated, of another Dodo.
Fig. 6. Anterior dorsal vertebra, side view.
Fig. 7. Ditto, front view; _pl_, outline of heads of floating
rib.
Fig. 8. Penultimate cervical vertebra, side view.
Fig. 9. Ditto, back view.
Fig. 10. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.
Fig. 11. Ditto, under view.
Fig. 12. Axis, or second cervical vertebra, upper view.
Fig. 13. Ditto, under view.
PLATE VI.
Fig. 1. Under view of sternum.
Fig. 2. Upper or inner view.
Fig. 3. Back view.
PLATE VII.
Fig. 1. Under or inner view of pelvis.
Fig. 2. Upper or outer view of pelvis.
PLATE VIII.
Fig. 1. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.
Fig. 2. Fifth cervical vertebra, upper view.
Fig. 3. Fourth cervical vertebra, under view.
Fig. 4. Right coracoid and clavicle.
Fig. 5. Left coracoid and clavicle.
Fig. 6. Right scapula, outer view.
Fig. 7. Right scapula, inner view.
Fig. 8. Left moiety of scapular arch, outer view.
Fig. 9. Ditto, inner view.
Fig. 10. Upper articular end of right coracoid.
Fig. 11. Lower ditto.
Fig. 12. Left humerus, anconal or back surface.
Fig. 13. Left humerus, ulnar or inner surface.
Fig. 14. Left ditto, palmar or front surface.
A. Ditto, proximal or upper end.
B. Ditto, radial side of upper half.
C. Ditto, distal end.
Fig. 15. Right radius.
Fig. 16. Right ulna, inner or radial side.
Fig. 17. Ditto, outer or ulnar side.
PLATE IX.
Fig. 1. Left femur, front view.
Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.
Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.
Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.
Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.
PLATE X.
Fig. 1. Left tibia, front view.
Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.
Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.
Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.
Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.
Fig. 6. Left fibula, outer view.
Fig. 7. Ditto, inner view.
Fig. 8. Ditto, upper view.
PLATE XI.
Fig. 1. Longitudinal vertical section of mutilated skull.
Fig. 2. Ditto of third cervical vertebra.
Fig. 3. Ditto of lower cervical vertebra.
Fig. 4. Transverse vertical section of sternum.
Fig. 5. Longitudinal section of humerus.
Fig. 6. Ditto of upper end of femur.
Fig. 7. Ditto of lower end of femur.
Fig. 8. Ditto of upper end of tibia.
Fig. 9. Ditto of lower end of tibia.
Fig. 10. Ditto of metatarsus.
PLATE XII.
Fig. 1. Sternum of _Didunculus_, upper view.
Fig. 2. Ditto, front view.
Fig. 3. Sternum of _Goura_, upper view.
Fig. 4. Sternum of _Podargus humeralis_, under view.
Fig. 5. Pelvis of _Goura_, under or inner view, half natural size.
Fig. 6. Pelvis of _Gyps_ (Vulture), under or inner view, half natural
size.
Fig. 7. Left moiety of scapular arch, _Goura_.
Fig. 8. Left humerus of _Goura_, anconal surface.
Fig. 9. Ditto, palmar surface of upper end.
Fig. 10. Ditto, palmar surface of lower end.
Fig. 11. Right femur of _Goura_, front view.
Fig. 12. Ditto, back view of upper end, and back view of lower end.
Fig. 13. Right tibia and fibula of _Goura_, front view.
All the figures are of the natural size, save when otherwise expressed.
The letters are explained in the text.
THE END.
PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.
[Illustration: PLATE. II.
E. W. Robinson pinx M & N Hanhart, imp. J. Erxleben, lith.
DIDUNCULUS.]
[Illustration: From Nat on Stone by J. Erxleben.
M. & N. Hanhart, imp.
DIDUNCULUS STRIGIROSTRIS. _Jde_ DIDUS INEPTUS. _L._]
[Illustration: _PL. IV._
_E. W. Robinson del._ _W. West imp._]
[Illustration: PLATE. V.
From nat on Stone, by J. Erxleben. M & N. Hanhart, imp.]
[Illustration: _PL. VI._
_E. W. Robinson del._ _W. West imp._]
[Illustration: PLATE. VII.
J. Smit. lith. M & N. Hanhart. imp.]
[Illustration: PLATE. VIII.
From nat on Stone, by J. Erxleben. M. & N. Hanhart, imp.]
[Illustration: PLATE. IX.
_Fig 1_
_Fig 2_
_Fig 3_
_Fig 4_
_Fig 5_
J. Smit lith. M & N. Hanhart, imp.]
[Illustration: PLATE. X.
_Fig 1_
_Fig 2_
_Fig 3_
_Fig 4_
_Fig 5_
_Fig 6_
_Fig 7_
_Fig 8_
J. Smit. lith. M. & N. Hanhart imp.]
[Illustration: PLATE. XI.
J. Smit. lith. M. & N. Hanhart. imp.]
[Illustration: PLATE. XII.
from nat on stone, by J. Erxleben. M & N Hanhart imp.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] By +William John Broderip+, Esq., F.R.S. The part containing the
article was published in 1836, the volume (ix.) appeared in 1837.
[2] “So in Willughby, but the print is somewhat indistinct, and
there maybe error. In the original the words are ‘_Walgh-Vogel_,
hoc est, nauseam movens, partim quod’ &c., the word therefore is an
interpolation.”
[3] These and other grotesque figures, which may be seen, copied, in
Strickland’s History of the Dodo (‘Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848),
from the old authors cited by Broderip, are mere matters of curiosity,
and are here omitted as devoid of scientific value.
[4] This head, in the condition of a skull, has subsequently been
discovered at Copenhagen.—R. O.
[5] The outline of the Dodo in this painting is given, of the natural
size, in Pl. III. of the present work; the reduced woodcut (_tom. cit._
p. 51, copied by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 28) is, therefore, not here
reproduced.—R. O.
[6] “This curious statement is extracted in the recent edition of Sir
Thomas Brown’s works by Wilkins: published by Pickering.” [8vo, 1836,
vol. i. p. 369, vol. ii. 173. The reference, in Strickland (_op. cit._
p. 22), to vol. i. p. 369. is to a Letter by Sir Hamon L’Estrange to
Dr. Browne, not containing any allusion to the Dodo.—R. O.]
[7] Art. +Dodo+, Penny Cyclopædia, vol. ix. p. 62 (1837).
[8] “London, 4to, Reeve and Co., 1848.”
[9] “Vol. ix. p. 47 (1837).”
[10] “Penny Cyclopædia, vol. xxiii. (1842).”
[11] Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vol. iv. part
vi. p. 183.
[12] “Dict. des Monogrammes, 1 partie, pp. 201, 274.”
[13] “I am indebted to Mr. Russell for this information.”
[14] “_Nautilus pompilius._”
[15] _Op. cit._ p. 30.
[16] Edwards’s ‘Natural History of Birds and other Rare and undescribed
Animals,’ &c., 4to, vol. vi. pl. 294, 1760.
[17] “Pendant tout le temps qu’on fut là, en vécut de tortues, de
dodarses, de pigeons, de perroquets gris, et d’autre chasse, qu’on
allait prendre avec les mains dans les bois.... La chair des tortues
terrestres étoit d’un fort bon goût. On en sala, et l’on fit fumer,
dent on se trouva fort bien, de même que des dodarses qu’on sala.”
(Recueil des Voiages de la Compagnie des Indes Or., vol. iii. pp. 195,
199, quoted by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 17.)
[18] ‘History of the Mauritius,’ p. 145*, compiled from the Baron’s
papers by his son.
[19] See Annals of Nat. Hist. ser. 2. vol. vi. p. 290 (1850).
[20] “Es war in 1843, dass ich auf den Gedanken kam, dass der Dodo eine
anomale Taubenform sei; ich überzeugte mich bald dass diese Auffassung
die einzig richtige sei, und fing an eine Arbeit über diesen Gegenstand
vorzubereiten. In 1845 wurde ich aber von meiner Regierung beauftragt
eine Reise um die Welt mit einem dänischen Kriegsschiff mitzumachen;
meine Arbeit musste also vorläufig bei Seite gelegt werden. Schon
vor meine Abreise hat ich aber mehrere sowohl dänische wie fremde
Naturforscher mit meiner Ansicht bekannt gemacht, und der Beweis das es
sich so verhält wird Owen finden können:—
“1. in den Forhandlingar de Scandinaviske Naturforskers Möde, i
Kjöbenhavn, 1847, p. 948: und
“2. in Sundevall, Arsberättelse om Framstegen i vertebrerade
Djurens Naturalhistoria og Ethnographien, 1845–50, p. 254.”—_Letter
from_ Prof. +J. Reinhardt+ _to_ Dr. +Albert Günther+.
[21] Reinhardt, quoted by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 41 (see also p. 70).
[22] This Collection was purchased by the Trustees of the British
Museum for the sum of £100.
[23] So determined, subsequent sets of bones transmitted from
Mauritius, and from which I was privileged to select the most perfect
specimens for the present memoir, got into the market and were sold
by auction since the present memoir was in type, as bones certified
by me to be of the Dodo. I have to express my sincere and grateful
acknowledgements to those _gentlemen_ into whose hands these lots
have fallen, who have forborne their own advantage and refrained from
rushing into print with figures from inferior specimens to anticipate
the appearance of a Memoir communicated to the Zoological Society of
London, January 9th, 1866, and notified in the ‘Proceedings of the
Zoological Society’ for January 1866 as destined “to be published
entire in the Society’s Transactions,” and therefore necessarily
awaiting the lithographing of “illustrations,” which every true
promoter of science for its own sake must have desired to see as
complete as the best-selected materials would permit to be given.—R.
O., June 1866.
[24] In the quaint print, in folio 3, of the “Narration Historique
du Voiage faict par les huict Navires d’_Amsterdam_ au mois de Mars
l’An 1598. soubs la conduitte de l’admiral Jaques Corneille Necq,”
&c., the first-named object, No 1, “Sont Tortues qui se tiennent sur
l’haut pays, frustez d’aisles pour nage, de telle grandeur, qu’ils
chargent ung homme et rampent encore fort roidement, prennent aussi des
Ecriuisses de la grandeur d’un pied qu’ils mengent. 2. Est ung oiseau,
par nous nommé _Oiseau de Nausée_, à l’instar d’une _Cigne_, ont le cul
rond, couvert de deux ou trois plumettes crespues, carent des aisles,
mais en lieu d’icelles ont ilz trois ou quatre plumettes noires, des
susdicts oiseaux avons nous prins une certaine quantité, accompaigné
d’aucunes tourturelles et autres oiseaux, qui par noz compaignons furēt
prins, la premiere fois qu’il arrivoyent au pays, pour chercher la plus
profonde et plus fraische Riviere, et si les navires y pourroyent estre
sauvez, et retournerent d’une grande joye, distribuant chasque navire,
de leur Venoison prins, dont nous partismes le lendemain vers le port,
fournismes chasque navire d’un Pilote de ceux qui au paravant y avoyent
esté, avons cuict cest oiseau, estoit si coriace que ne le povions
asses boviller, mais l’avons mengé a demy cru. Si tost qu’arrivames
au port, envoya le Vice-Admiral nous, avecq une certaine troupe au
pays, pour trouver aucun peuple, mais n’ont trouvé personne, que des
Tourturelles et autres en grande abondance, lesquels nous prismes et
tuames, car veu qu’il n’y eust personne qui les effraia, n’avoient
ilz de nous nulle crainte, tindrēt lieu, se laisserent assomer. En
sōme c’est un pays abōdant en poissō et oiseaux, voire tellemēt
qu’il excella tous les autres audit voyage.”—_Le Second Livre de la
Navigation des Indes Orientales_, fol., 1601. The Tortoise and Dodo in
fig. 1, p. 1, of the present work, are taken from the print, p. 3, of
the above work and edition.
[25] See, especially, Bontekoe’s figure, copied by Strickland, in the
title-page and at p. 63 of the above-cited work.
[26] Owen, ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ 1866, vol. ii. p. 32.
[27] Called “hyosternal” in the Geoffroyan determination of parts of
the bird’s sternum.
[28] The intermuscular ridges (‘pectoral,’ ‘subcostal,’ ‘carinal’) are,
with other parts of the bird’s sternum, here named as defined in my
‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. ii. pp. 16–23.
[29] “La Mare aux Songes.”
[30] Proc. Zool. Soc. _l. c._ p. 5.
[31] Proc, Zool. Soc. _l. c._ p. 6.
[32] Zool. Trans. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4.
[33] Odontography, pl. 146. fig. 1; Anat. of Vertebrates, vol. ii. p.
439. fig. 296.
[34] The habit of the Dodo to avail itself of extraneous crushers to
a gallinaceous or struthious degree, is attested by the quotation, p.
8, not the least interesting of the fruits of the extensive research
of the learned and conscientious author of the Article +Dodo+, in the
‘Penny Cyclopædia.’
[35] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 51.
[36] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4.
[37] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 3.
[38] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 1.
[39] Ibid. fig. 5.
[40] Histoire Naturelle &c., 4to, tom. xiv. “Dégénération des Animaux:”
1760.
[41] Philosophie Zoologique, 8vo, 1809, tom. i, chaps. 3, 6, & 7.
[42] Agreeably with the principle of the “contest for existence” by
which I explained the extinction of the species of _Dinornis_, Trans.
Zool. Soc. vol. iv. p. 14, 1851.
[43] Strickland and Melville, ‘The Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848, p.
34.
[44] _Op. cit._ p. 34.
[45] See letter in ‘The Times’ of May 21st, 1862, advocating the
limitation of the National Museum of Natural History to “six rooms,”
signed +Thomas H. Huxley+, F.R.S.
[46] Reply to the above in ‘The Times’ of May 2nd, 1866, and in both
editions (1861, 1862) of my ‘Discourse on the Extent and Aims of a
National Museum of Natural History.’ “Some naturalists urge that it
is only necessary to exhibit the type-form of each genus or family.
But they do not tell us what is such ‘type-form.’ It is a metaphysical
term, which implies that the Creative Force had a guiding pattern for
the construction of all the varying or divergent forms in each genus
or family. The idea is devoid of proof; and those who are loudest in
advocating the restriction of exhibited specimens to ‘types’ have
contributed least to lighten the difficulties of the practical curator
in making the selection.” (Ed. 1862, p. 24; see also pp. 26–34.)
[47] “The doctrine of typical nuclei seems only a mode of evading the
difficulty. Experience does not give us the types of theory; and,
after all, what are these types? It must be admitted there are none in
reality. How are we led to the theory of them? Simply by a process of
abstraction from classified existences. Having grouped from natural
similitudes certain natural forms into a class, we select attributes
common to each member of the class, and call the assemblage of such
attributes a type of the class. This process gives us an abstract idea;
and we then transfer this idea to the Creator, and make Him start with
that which our own imperfect generalization has derived.” (Address,
&c., by +William R. Grove+, Esq., Q.C., M.A. 8vo, London, 1866: p. 31.)