| → thought 1869 1872 |
| reasoning or thinking 1859 1860 1861 1866 |
|
| ↑ 1 blocks not present in 1869 1872; present in 1859 1860 1861 1866 |
| If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes.
|
|
| → well as 1869 1872 |
| he likewise includes 1859 1860 1861 |
| he likewise does 1866 |
|
| → from their partial resemblance to 1869 1872 |
| solely because they closely resemble 1859 1860 1861 |
| because they may closely resemble 1866 |
|
| → all under the so-called natural system? 1869 1872 |
| though in these cases the modification has been greater in degree, and has taken a longer time to complete? 1859 1860 1861 |
| though in these cases the modification has been much greater in degree, and has taken a longer time to complete? 1866 |
|
| → are forced to trace 1872 |
| have to make out 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
|
| → OMIT 1872 |
| as far as we can judge, 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
|
|
without any
→thought
on the subject, these tumblers are kept in the same group, because allied in blood and alike in some other respects. ↑
|
|
| With species in a state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade,
that of
species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters, is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the
and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes,
and yet no one dreams of separating them. As soon as the three Orchidean forms,
Myanthus, and Catasetum, which had previously been ranked as three distinct genera, were known to be sometimes produced on the same plant, they were immediately considered as varieties;
now I have been able to show that they
the male, female, and hermaphrodite forms of the same species. The naturalist includes as one species the
larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the
as
→well as
the so-called alternate generations of Steenstrup, which can only in a technical sense be considered as the same individual. He includes
varieties, not
→from their partial resemblance to
the parent-form, but because they are descended from it.
|
|
| As descent has universally been used in classing together the individuals of the same species, though the males and females and larvæ are sometimes extremely different; and as it has been used in classing varieties which have undergone a certain, and sometimes a considerable amount of modification, may not this same element of descent have been unconsciously used in grouping species under genera, and genera under higher groups,
→all under the so-called natural system? I believe it has
been unconsciously used; and
can I understand the several rules and guides which have been followed by our best systematists.
have no written
we
→are forced to trace
community of descent by resemblances of any kind. Therefore we choose those characters
→OMIT
are the least likely to have been
in relation to the conditions of life to which each species has been recently exposed. Rudimentary structures on this view are as good as, or even sometimes better than, other parts of the organisation. We 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
|
