themselves from the beginning of the world, without exceeding
the limits first prescribed: all the individuals belonging
to one of these forms constitute what is termed a species.”
And M. De Candolle admitting that there is something hypothetical
in the sense attached by him to this term,, observes,
that “ we unite, under the designation of a species, all those
individuals who mutually bear to each other so close a resemblance
as to allow of our supposing, that they may have
proceeded originally from a single being or a. single pair.”
He adds, “ that this fundamental idea is evidently founded on
an hypothesis, at least- as far as its particular applications
are concerned, though it is the only one which conveys precisely
what naturalists mean by species. The degree of resemblance
which authorises our bringing together individuals
under this designation varies very much in different families ;
and it happens not unfrequently that two individuals belonging
really to the same species, differ more among themselves
in appearance than do others of distinct species: thus the
spaniel and the danish dog are, as to their exterior, more
different from each other than the dog and the wolf. And
the varieties of our fruit-trees offer greater apparent differences
than many species.” *
M. Be Candolle is certainly right in limiting what is hypothetical
in the conception of species inrits particular applications.
The meaning of the term, as I have endeavoured to
define it, is sufficiently distinct.'; To discover some better
ground-work than hypothesis on which to rest in particular
applicationsj is the main object of this part of my work.
I t is worth while to remark, that the same meaning seems
to have been originally attached to the word genus or ysvoc,f
which we now appropriate to species. These, terms, as well
as our English word.kind, came a t length to be applied, by
unscientific observers, to particular assortments of organized
beings, which so resemble each other as to suggest an idea
of some near relation between them. Naturalists however,
finding that such expressions as the ox-kind, the dogdrind,
* M. De Candolle. Physiologie Végétale, tome ii. p. 689.
•j- The word y t v o ç might have been defined---o ta y i y v o v r a i /cat à<p’ w v .
the cat-kind, were, in popular language, too comprehensively
applied; to correspond with the results tof accurate observation,
introduced th e use of |h e tirm species; fe designate exactly
what genus originally expressed.
. It is .evident that there exist in Nature, beyond the limits
of what we now term species, certain groupes or assortments
comprising tribes, whether of plants or animals, in which the
particular races- are strikingly .similar to^ erich Other, and of
which all the individuals or brééds*ih'each groupe are very
clearly distinguished from those; belonging*to other, groupes/.
Such are all the species- of the horse kind; -the races-of oxen,
buffalos,v bisons, and auroxeri;i<and the dog and c a t kinds
furnish other familiar examples. * We are unacquainted with
any physical causes capablêKof producmgisuich differences of
structure aiothoste which distmgmsh Trom each other the different
breeds "comprehended in each o f1 these groupes; yet
they àppeâçuto be stf modelled upon particular' types,- that
many persons have been led to entertain an opinion, that' the
Æffefences between such tribes* are*/posterior in time to the
era of their first existeijcè. v : The phenomena of resemblance
appear- to require some explanation, not less than those of
diversity ; ;and a reference óf' several slightly varied forms to
a common type;- cannot fail to suggèst the idea, of: original
affinity!* Our observation of the influence which external
agents have" exercised ■ on races of organized beings reaches
b ack f to no very remote period; and a/fe^seems by no means
improbable that this influence may have, béten more powerful
in the early stage of the existence of each tribe, than it
* M. Geoffroy Saiint-Hilaire, et M. Serres. Mem. du, Muséum, 9ême année.
-f- This is undoubtedly true, if we consider the subject on an extensive scale; mid
ffie observation as a general One is àôV refuted by particular instances in which
the antiquity of species has been demonstrated, evën though M. Bonastre found,
either represented or preserved, eighty existing plants in the remains of ancient
Egypt, and M. Kunth a twentieth part of our actual plants in the fragments of
mummies. These relations are, as it must he admitted, very surprising. De
Candolle speaks of siicK facts as establishing the permanency of species for a
period of 3000 years. But it ïhust hè remembered that the art of embalming in ■
mummies, was still in use subsequently to the establishment of Christianity
in Egypt ; and even in the time of St. Augustin, viz. in the fifth century. See
Blumenbach, Beytraege zur Naturgeschichte, and Walch de Mumiis Christianis in
Comment. Reg. Soc. Sc. Goetting, tom. iii.