Let us see, then, how this law of order, in organic grouping, as exemplified in the individual organism, may be applied to that collective organism of vertebrata embodied in the class mammalia. Seven natural alliances may easily be placed in parallel with the seven systems of the human body; not, perhaps, with any preconceived idea of analogy or correspondency, but merely as a fact of natural organic subdivision; thus, These alliances may seem at first imperfect, but a subdivision into orders will make them appear less so. In the Quadrumanal alliance there are the Simial and the Lemural orders; in the Plantigrade, the Ursine and Marsupial orders; in the Digitigrade, the Feline and the Canine orders;—each containing subdivisions to be noticed presently. The Bimanal alliance forms but one order, and this order but one family, and, indeed, but one species; and yet we place it in parallel with the whole nervous system in man, which ranks even higher than the other systems. The brain is the recognised organ of the mind in man, and man is the acknowledged head of the creation. The Equine alliance, also, forms one order only, or one family. The Ruminant alliance is much more complex, and may be naturally subdivided into a horned order and a hornless. The Pachydermal, properly so called, forms but a single order; but the Rodents are so nearly allied in many leading points of structure with the Pachyderms that we place them together in the same alliance. This arrangement of the seven alliances forms a dozen orders of mammalia; thus : Class Mammalia in parallel with different Systems of Organs in the Human Body. E Ursine order: (genera tive system.) EE Marsupial order: (gene- C Equine order: (osseous BB Hornless ruminants: (vi- AA Rodental order: (radia- A Pachydermal order: (cu- These parallels suppose the nervous system most predominant in man; the digestive system in canine and feline species; the generative peculiarities of structure most predominant in the plantigrade alliance; the cutaneous system in pachydermata; and so of all the rest. We need not dwell on the subdivisions of those orders which are the most simple in this list, but a few words of explanation may be necessary for the others. By placing the Digitigrade alliance in parallel with the natural subdivisions of the alimentary system in the human body, we shall find the following numerical distinctions of organs and series in both : : 1. The mouth and œsophagus. 2. The stomach. 3. The duodenum. 4. The small intestines. 5. The large bowels. 6. The anus and rectum. The natural families or series of groups in the Digitigrade alliance are the following: 1. Felidæ. 2. Hyænidæ. 3. Viverridæ. 4. Canidæ. 5. Enhydridæ. 6. Mustelidæ. 7. Profelidæ. The first four series in this system or alliance need not detain us, as their natural subdivisions are already recognised by systematic zoologists. In the fifth series we place the walrus, the seal, the kalan (enhydra), and the otter, as natural genera belonging to one series or family. The sixth series needs no comment, and in the seventh we place the semiplantigrade aberrant genera of digitigrades-namely, procyon, nasua, ailurus, and cercoleptes, or racoons, coatis, the panda or wah, and the kinkajou, to which the binturong should be added; and probably with this group, instead of with viverridæ, the suricate and the mangue, or crosarchus obscurus, should be classed. The Canine order is placed in parallel with the main organs of the alimentary system, and the Feline with those of special sense and articular rank in the same system. Thus, Felida, Viverrida, Mustelidæ, and Profelidæ form one order, in the majority of which the claws are more or less retractile, as a main distinguishing characteristic; while Hyanidæ, Canidæ, and Enhydridæ, form another order with unretractile claws, as a leading difference of structural peculiarity. The words canine and feline are perhaps too special to denote these orders; but new names would probably be less convenient. In the Ursine order we have a like difficulty in the name, as in this general division are included three distinct series or families, namely, Urside, Edentide, and Insectivorida. The latter have been classed as an order, but they are only entitled to rank as a subordinate series in this order. Nearly all marsupial animals are more or less plantigrade; and as the Ursine order here described are carnivorous, insectivorous, frugivorous, and omnivorous, they are just as well entitled to the rank of a sub-class, as the marsupiata, which have had this honour mainly on account of their diversified habits of feeding. Marsupial types are merely aberrant forms of plantigrade mammalia, neither more numerous in species nor diversified in structure than the rodents, which rank only as an order. Cheiroptera we class as aberrant forms of Quadrumana; Sirenia and Cetacea as aberrant types of Pachydermata;—the reasons will be explained in a forthcoming work not yet ready for the press. Meanwhile we may observe that Cuvier, the most eminent of all zoologists, recognised these natural affinities. It has been said that man is a microcosm, an image of creation as well as of the Creator; and in this view of organic parallels we see a likeness between the microcosm and the macrocosm, organised on the same principle of order, number, and harmony, in every part of the collective unity. This outline of organic method is applied to the mammalian class only of vertebrata; but the individual vertebrate organism corresponds in completeness of parallel to the whole realm of vertebrate organic unity, the connective tissues being parallel with the oviparous classes, and the main tissues with viviparous mammalia; thus, Mammals, (principal organic tissues.) (glandular connective tissues.) (fibrous areolar connective tissues.) (adipous and serous connective tissues.) These parallels may be deemed quite arbitrary by those who differ widely from the author in habitual modes of thought; and there is no reason why every one should not hold independent views of natural organic method and of natural science generally, as well as of theology or the interpretation of revealed religion, until final views of natural and spiritual truth enable man to see at once the difference between perfect and imperfect theories in every sphere of thought and understanding. Man knows little, guesses much, and quarrels with the guessings of his neighbour if they differ from his own. Nature is no more answerable for the shortcomings of "natural science" than Scripture is responsible for the discrepancies of spiritual science or theology. The want of faith in revelation, we may safely say, will not enable us to dive into the mysteries of nature, by the mere conceit of deeming ourselves rational, and those who differ from us, superstitious. Natural science has done nothing yet, nor do we think it ever can do anything, to injure true religion, although popes and theologians have often entertained erroneous views of science, and philosophers erroneous ideas of religion. 71 On the Inapplicability of the New Term " Dyas" to the "Permian" Group of Rocks, as proposed by Dr Geinitz. By Sir RODERICK IMPEY MURCHISON, F.R.S., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Director-General of the Geological Survey of Britain. In the year 1859 M. Marcou proposed to substitute the word" Dyas" for "Permian," and summed up his views by saying that he regarded "the New Red Sandstone, comprising the Dyas and Trias, as a great geologic period, equal in time and space to the Paleozoic epoch or the Graywacke (Silurian and Devonian), the Carboniferous (Mountain-limestone and Coal), the Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous), the Tertiary (Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene), and the recent deposits (Quaternary and later)." !! * As that author, who had not been in Russia, criticised the labours and inductions of my associates, de Verneuil and von Keyserling, and myself, in having proposed the word "Permian" for tracts in which he surmised that we had commingled with our Permian deposits much red rock of the age of the Trias, I briefly defended the views I had further sustained by personal examination of the rocks of Permian age in various other countries of Europe.† It was, indeed, evident that M. Marcou's proposed union of the so-called Dyas and Trias in one natural group could not for a moment be maintained, since there is no conclusion on which geologists and paleontologists are more agreed, than that the series composed of Roth-liegende, Kupfer-Schiefer, Zechstein, &c., forms the uppermost Palæozoic group, and is entirely distinct in all its fossils, animal and vegetable, from the overlying Trias, which forms the true base of the Mesozoic or Secondary rocks. Owing to such a manifest confusion respecting the true paleontological value of the proposed "Dyas," we should probably never have heard more of the word, had not my distin *See "Dyas et Trias de Marcou," Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, 1859. † See" American Journal of Science and Arts," 2d series, vol. xxviii. p. 256, -the work of M. Marcou having attracted more attention in America than in England. |