| → in the case of crustaceans, 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| with crustaceans, any 1872 |
|
|
In our discussion on embryology, we shall see why such characters are so valuable, on the view of classification tacitly including the idea of descent. |
|
| Our classifications are often plainly influenced by chains of affinities. Nothing can be easier than to define a number of characters common to all birds; but
→in the case of crustaceans,
such definition has hitherto been found impossible. There are crustaceans at the opposite ends of the series, which have hardly a character in common; yet the species at both ends, from being plainly allied to others, and these to others, and so onwards, can be recognised as unequivocally belonging to this, and to no other class of the Articulata. |
|
| Geographical distribution has often been used, though perhaps not quite logically, in classification, more especially in very large groups of closely allied forms. Temminck insists on the utility or even necessity of this practice in certain groups of birds; and it has been followed by several entomologists and botanists. |
|
| Finally, with respect to the comparative value of the various groups of species, such as orders, sub-orders, families, sub-families, and genera, they seem to be, at least at present, almost arbitrary. Several of the best botanists, such as Mr. Bentham and others, have strongly insisted on their arbitrary value. Instances could be given amongst plants and insects, of a group
first ranked by practised naturalists as only a genus, and then raised to the rank of a sub-family or family; and this has been done, not because further research has detected important structural differences, at first overlooked, but because numerous allied
with slightly different grades of difference, have been subsequently discovered.
|
