CHAPTER VII ON THE NATURE OF THE AFFINITIES AND CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIC BEINGS1 Gradual appearance and disappearance of groups. IT has been observed from the earliest times that organic beings fall into groups2, and these groups into others of several values, such as species into genera, and then into sub-families, into families, orders, &c. The same fact holds with those beings which no longer exist. Groups of species seem to follow the same laws in their appearance and extinction3, as do the individuals of any one species: we have reason to believe that, first, a few species appear, that their numbers increase; and that, when tending to extinction, the numbers of the species decrease, till finally the group becomes extinct, in the same way as a species becomes extinct, by the individuals becoming rarer and rarer. Moreover, groups, like the individuals of a species, appear to become extinct at different times in different countries. The Palæotherium was extinct 1 Ch. XIII of the Origin, Ed. i., Ch. XIV Ed. vi. begins with a similar statement. In the present Essay the author adds a note:-"The obviousness of the fact (ie. the natural grouping of organisms) alone prevents it being remarkable. It is scarcely explicable by creationist: groups of aquatic, of vegetable feeders and carnivorous, &c., might resemble each other; but why as it is. So with plants,-analogical resemblance thus accounted for. Must not here enter into details." This argument is incorporated with the text in the Origin, Ed. i. much sooner in Europe than in India: the Trigonia1 was extinct in early ages in Europe, but now lives in the seas of Australia. As it happens that one species of a family will endure for a much longer period than another species, so we find that some whole groups, such as Mollusca, tend to retain their forms, or to remain persistent, for longer periods than other groups, for instance than the Mammalia. Groups therefore, in their appearance, extinction, and rate of change or succession, seem to follow nearly the same laws with the individuals of a species 2. What is the Natural System? The proper arrangement of species into groups, according to the natural system, is the object of all naturalists; but scarcely two naturalists will give the same answer to the question, What is the natural system and how are we to recognise it? The most important characters it might be thought (as it was by the earliest classifiers) ought to be drawn from those parts of the structure which determine its habits and place in the economy of nature, which we may call the final end of its existence. But nothing is further from the truth than this; how much external resemblance there is between the little otter (Chironectes) of Guiana and the common otter; or again between the common swallow and the swift; and who can doubt that the means and ends of their existence are closely similar, yet how grossly wrong would be the classification, which put close to each other a Marsupial and Placental animal, and two birds with widely different skeletons. Relations, such as in the two latter cases, or as that 1 Origin, Ed. i. p. 321, vi. p. 463. 2 In the Origin, Ed. i. this preliminary matter is replaced (pp. 411, 412, vi. pp. 566, 567) by a discussion in which extinction is also treated, but chiefly from the point of view of the theory of divergence. 3 Origin, Ed. p. 414, vi. p. 570. between the whale and fishes, are denominated "analogical1," or are sometimes described as “relations of adaption." They are infinitely numerous and often very singular; but are of no use in the classification of the higher groups. How it comes, that certain parts of the structure, by which the habits and functions of the species are settled, are of no use in classification, whilst other parts, formed at the same time, are of the greatest, it would be difficult to say, on the theory of separate creations. Some authors as Lamarck, Whewell &c., believe that the degree of affinity on the natural system depends on the degrees of resemblance in organs more or less physiologically important for the preservation of life. This scale of importance in the organs is admitted to be of difficult discovery. But quite independent of this, the proposition, as a general rule, must be rejected as false; though it may be partially true. For it is universally admitted that the same part or organ, which is of the highest service in classification in one group, is of very little use in another group, though in both groups, as far as we can see, the part or organ is of equal physiological importance: moreover, characters quite unimportant physiologically, such as whether the covering of the body consists of hair or feathers, whether the nostrils communicated with the mouth2 &c., &c., are of the highest generality in classification; even colour, which is so inconstant in many species, will sometimes well characterise even a whole group of species. Lastly, the fact, that no one character is of so much importance in determining to what great group an organism belongs, as the forms through which the embryo3 passes from the germ upwards to maturity, cannot be reconciled 1 Origin, Ed. i. p. 414, vi. p. 570. 2 These instances occur with others in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 416, vi. p. 572. 3 Origin, Ed. i. p. 418, vi. p. 574. with the idea that natural classification follows according to the degrees of resemblance in the parts of most physiological importance. The affinity of the common rock-barnacle with the Crustaceans can hardly be perceived in more than a single character in its mature state, but whilst young, locomotive, and furnished with eyes, its affinity cannot be mistaken1. The cause of the greater value of characters, drawn from the early stages of life, can, as we shall in a succeeding chapter see, be in a considerable degree explained, on the theory of descent, although inexplicable on the views of the creationist. Practically, naturalists seem to classify according to the resemblance of those parts or organs which in related groups are most uniform, or vary least 2: thus the æstivation, or manner in which the petals etc. are folded over each other, is found to afford an unvarying character in most families of plants, and accordingly any difference in this respect would be sufficient to cause the rejection of a species from many families; but in the Rubiaceæ the æstivation is a varying character, and a botanist would not lay much stress on it, in deciding whether or not to class a new species in this family. But this rule is obviously so arbitrary a formula, that most naturalists seem to be convinced that something ulterior is represented by the natural system; they appear to think that we only discover by such similarities what the arrangement of the system is, not that such similarities make the system. We can only thus understand Linnæus's well-known saying, that the characters do not make the genus; but that the genus gives the characters: for a classification, independent of characters, is here presupposed. 1 Origin, Ed. i. pp. 419, 440, vi. pp. 575, 606. 2 Origin, Ed. i. pp. 418, 425, vi. pp. 574, 581. Hence many naturalists have said that the natural system reveals the plan of the Creator: but without it be specified whether order in time or place, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, such expressions appear to me to leave the question exactly where it was. Some naturalists consider that the geographical position1 of a species may enter into the consideration of the group into which it should be placed; and most naturalists (either tacitly or openly) give value to the different groups, not solely by their relative differences in structure, but by the number of forms included in them. Thus a genus containing a few species might be, and has often been, raised into a family on the discovery of several other species. Many natural families are retained, although most closely related to other families, from including a great number of closely similar species. The more logical naturalist would perhaps, if he could, reject these two contingents in classification. From these circumstances, and especially from the undefined objects and criterions of the natural system, the number of divisions, such as genera, sub-families, families, &c., &c., has been quite arbitrary2; 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 family3 ? 1 Origin, Ed. i. pp. 419, 427, vi. pp. 575, 582. 2 This is discussed from the point of view of divergence in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 420, 421, vi. pp. 576, 577. 3 (Footnote by the author.) I discuss this because if Quinarism true, I false. (The Quinary System is set forth in W. S. Macleay's Hora Entomologica, 1821.) |