Origin of Species Variorum

→ strikingly similar shape 1872

thickened stems 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ body in the improved breeds of the Chinese and common pig, which are descended from distinct species; and in the similarly thickened stems of the common and specifically distinct 1872

common and 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ widely different animals. 1872

very distinct animals. 1859 1860 1861 1866

widely distinct animals. 1869

→ group 1872

class or order 1859 1860 1861

class or one order 1866 1869

→ group 1872

class or order 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ together: 1866 1869 1872

one with another: 1859 1860 1861

→ between the several members 1872

the shape 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ whale family, the shape of the body and the 1872

body and 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ for as these parts are so nearly similar throughout 1872

between the several members of 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ OMIT 1872

for these cetaceans agree in so many characters, great and small, that 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

→ been inherited 1872

inherited their general shape of body and structure of limbs 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869

misled by external appearances, actually classed an homopterous insect as a moth. We see something of the same kind even

with

our domestic varieties, as in the →strikingly similar shape of the →body in the improved breeds of the Chinese and common pig, which are descended from distinct species; and in the similarly thickened stems of the common and specifically distinct

swedish

Swedish

turnip. The resemblance

between

the greyhound and

racehorse

the racehorse

is hardly more fanciful than the analogies which have been drawn by some authors between → widely different animals. On

the

view of characters being of real importance for classification, only in so far as they reveal descent, we can clearly understand why analogical or adaptive

character,

characters,

although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the

systematists.

systematist.

For animals, belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may

readily

have

have become

become

adapted to similar conditions, and thus

assume

have assumed

a close external resemblance; but such resemblances will not reveal— will rather tend to conceal their

blood-relationship

their

proper

lines

descent.

We can

also

thus also

thus understand

understand

the apparent paradox, that the very same characters are analogical when one →group is compared with another, but give true affinities when the members of the same →group are compared →together:

thus

thus,

the shape of the body and fin-like limbs are only analogical when whales are compared with fishes, being adaptations in both classes for swimming through the water; but →between the several members of the →whale family, the shape of the body and the fin-like limbs

serve as

offer

characters exhibiting true

affinity

affinity;

→for as these parts are so nearly similar throughout the

whale

whole

family;

family,

→OMIT we cannot doubt that they have →been inherited from a common ancestor. So it is with fishes.

Numerous cases could be given of striking resemblances in quite distinct beings between single parts or organs, which have been adapted for the same functions. A good instance is afforded by the close resemblance of the jaws of the dog and Tasmanian wolf or Thylacinus,— animals which are widely sundered in the natural system. But this resemblance is confined to general appearance, as in the prominence of the canines, and in the cutting shape of the molar teeth. For the teeth really differ much: thus the dog has on each side of the upper jaw four pre-molars and only two molars; whilst the Thylacinus has three pre-molars and four molars. The molars also differ much in the two animals in relative size and structure. The adult dentition is preceded by a widely different milk dentition. Any one may of course deny that the teeth