| → ancestor. 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| ancestor; and we know that such aggregated characters have especial value in classification. 1872 |
|
| → in 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| from its allies, in 1872 |
|
| → from its allies, 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| OMIT 1872 |
|
| → hereafter, I think, clearly 1859 1860 1861 1866 |
| presently 1869 1872 |
|
|
care not how trifling a character may be— let it be the mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in which an
wing is folded, whether the skin be covered by hair or feathers— if it prevail throughout many and different species, especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes high value; for we can account for its presence in so many forms with such different habits, only by
inheritance from a common parent. We may err in this respect in regard to single points of structure, but when several characters, let them be ever so trifling,
throughout a large group of beings having different habits, we may feel almost sure, on the theory of descent, that these characters have been inherited from a common
→ancestor. And we know that such correlated or aggregated characters have especial value in classification. |
|
| We can understand why a species or a group of species may
→in
several of its most important characteristics,
→from its allies,
and yet be safely classed with them. This may be safely done, and is often done, as long as a sufficient number of characters, let them be ever so unimportant, betrays the hidden bond of community of descent. Let two forms have not a single character in common,
if these extreme forms are connected together by a chain of intermediate
we may at once infer their community of descent, and we put them all into the same class. As we find organs of high physiological importance— those which serve to preserve life under the most diverse conditions of existence— are generally the most constant, we attach especial value to them; but if these same organs, in another group or section of a group, are found to differ much, we at once value them less in our classification. We shall
→hereafter, I think, clearly
see why embryological characters are of such high classificatory importance.
|
