Chapter 9 - Classification

To touch the subject of classification even, one must be very
bold, very ignorant or - and I would rather have this considered to be
my own case - very confident in his guide. It will be seen, in fact,
that I have already touched it, and that my readers have some right to
assert that the principles that have been announced ought, if true, to
carry one further. If nature has, to the extent affirmed already, in
these pages, a numerical structure, then is it at all likely that this
should be but so partial a truth? Must not the smaller divisions, as
well as the larger, if once they are ascertained, be characterized by
these significant numbers? Nay, would it not seem that their first
service to us here, if, as is plain, they are meant to do us service,
will be to verify true classification?

Certainly this seems a
first necessity in order to find what deeper meaning than we have yet
realized lies hid in nature. We must have some arrangement of the
multifarious objects she presents to us which will save us the
impossible toil of accumulating in our minds the tens of thousands of
points of detail, - of resemblance and of contrast, - which distract
and bewilder us, if. without a clue we attempt to penetrate what is
yet, even to the most devoted students of it, so much a wilderness of
facts and hypotheses.

Classification, if it be a true one, is
the putting things in their places, defining their relationship to one
another and to the general plan; and that plan - if there be one -must
be God's plan, the expression of the divine mind in nature, the lesson
He has set for us to learn, however poorly or imperfectly we may in
fact learn it. Classification is in this sense of transcendent
importance; and I trust, the thought of this may plead for me, if I
offer but some scattered and feeble suggestions as to it, which, if
they be little enlightening, may yet help another perhaps to find the
light.

Surely, the thing that becomes us, as those in our
Father's image, is to expect to find everywhere in what He has made the
impress of its Maker, His own manifestation to the minds of those who
seek Him in it. And (it may be again said) if He have forbidden to us
idle words, there will be in all this no idle word. Serious, yet
blessed meaning will face us everywhere; and to look for this is to
find it, if only we look reverently, as those that value what they
search for. Here the law holds good, - "every one that seeketh
findeth." Encouraged thus by the Word of God itself, we may go on.

Classifications
are numerous enough, but in looking round among them one can find few
indeed that claim for themselves any principle of construction which
can give us the least hope of such a clue to the divine plan as we are
seeking. The meaning that Darwinism seeks has no purpose in it,
therefore no intelligence; and the systems devised in this interest
have as their only end, to discover the genealogical tree of life,
which, whether it has its root in chance or necessity, was never
watered by the river of God, and bears no fruit but Dead Sea apples.
Nor in general has any divine plan been seriously thought of. There is,
however, an exception to this; and, if "he that seeketh findeth," we
may hope to have here at least a beginning of truth. Strange to say,
the first outline of it was struck out nearly at the same time by two,
men entirely apart from one another, the Wallace and Darwin, let us
hope, of a better day beginning, and for which we would be glad to
believe in the "survival of the fittest." That its discoverers have
passed away, and the system itself has, after awakening some attention
for awhile, died also, need not forbid hope, for many a truth
discovered has had ordained for it such a death, and yet in, due time
resurrection; and it may be so with this.

The system has for us
also this additional attraction, that it is a numerical one. Thus our
hope brightens, especially as it purports to be not a hypothesis, but a
discovery - a report of what those versed in certain branches of
natural history had seen in their respective departments; not a theory
of what should be there, but of what (according to their belief) was
there.

The first of these discoverers had given himself to the
special study of insects, and the volume which contained his first
rough sketches was called Hora Entomologica. But Mr. McLeay's system
was taken up, and in some sense remodeled, by a well-known man, and
author of a book in which it was elaborated and applied especially to
Ornithology - the "Fauna Boreali Americana." From a later and smaller
book, the "Geography and Classification of Animals," published in 1835,
I take the outlines of the completed system.

The first principle of Mr. McLeay's system is, that every natural series or group of animals is circular; -
"So
that, upon commencing at any given point, and thence tracing all the
modifications of structure, we shall be imperceptibly led, after
passing through numerous forms, again to the point from which we
started."

The second principle is, that the divisions
of. every group, where any exist, are five in number. To which Mr.
Swainson adds, that the primary circular divisions of every natural
group are three actually, and five apparently. He calls these three,
the typical, subtypical, and aberrant groups; and adds -
"The
difference of considering a natural group as divisible into three
instead of five, does not in the least affect the natural series by
which they are united. The discovery of the union of Mr. McLeay's three
aberrant groups into a circle of their own, is the addition only of a
property superadded to that which they were known to possess; this
property consisting of uniting into a circle among themselves, as well
as passing into the typical and subtypical groups."

The third principle is this, -
"That the
contents of every circular group are symbolically or analogically
represented by the contents of every other circle in the animal
kingdom."

And the fourth principle, which seems really
involved in the last, although it was first stated explicitly by Mr.
Swainson, is "That the primary divisions of every circular group are
characterized by definite peculiarities of form, structure, and
economy; which, under diversified modifications, may be traced
throughout the animal kingdom; and are therefore to be regarded as the
primary types of nature."

This is the completed system,
certainly remark-able for its simplicity and symmetry at any rate,
while its requirements are sufficiently great to make it impossible, if
they can be met in practice, for the system which can meet them to be
other than the truth. We shall return to this directly.

The
second discoverer of this numerical system was Elias Fries, a
distinguished botanist, who in his Systema Mycologicum applied it to -
"The
full investigation of the whole class of Fungi," says Mr. Swainson,
"through all its minor groups or subdivisions.". "It is very remarkable
that this consummate botanist, totally ignorant of the previous
publication of the Hora Entomologica, should have detected the same
principles of circular affinities therein developed, and should have
illustrated them by analysis much more fully. Yet, although these
naturalists agree in considering the circularity of groups to be the
first principle of the natural system, they differ in the determinate
number of their groups; those of Mr. McLeay being, in fact, ten (or,
according to his subsequent belief, five); and those of M. Fries four.
It seems, however, that the centrum or typical group of the German
botanist, is always divisible into two series (sed centrum abit semper
in duas series); and that each of his series or groups is a circle
appears evident from the following words : - Omnis sectio naturalis
circulum per se clausum exhibet, - that is, every section, series, or
group forms of itself a circle. Hence it follows, that, as one of M.
Fries's groups, according to his own account, is always divisible into
two, thus their total number is not four, but five. The difference,
therefore, between this theory and the last is rather nominal than
real: for as M. Fries at the same time detected the theory" -
principle? - "of representation, by which the contents of one circle
typified the contents of a neighbouring circle, this, of course, led
him clearly to understand, and to define the difference between analogy
and affinity."

Thus two natural explorers, in different
departments of research, came to the discovery, they believed, of a
natural system, in itself sufficiently striking in its features, and
much more so as independently developed. The distinguished naturalists
to whom I have compared them had predecessors more or less in their own
line. It does not appear that Messrs. McLeay and Fries had any help of
this kind; and their views seem certainly to claim, if only on this
account, a careful examination.

The system also, as I have
said, is one which, taken in all its features, makes too many demands
upon its followers, to carry without conquering the minds of practical
observers; and that it has been capable of being applied by those who
were such to different and extended fields of natural research, argues
for it much. It does not hide itself from examination in the mists of
geologic ages, or, discount unlimited "drafts upon the bank of time,"
but appeals for examination in the light of nature as it is today, and
expects its riches from existing bullion. We may take it up hopefully,
especially as a numerical system, and which as such we may test by what
light we have got from numbers - a test of a very strict kind, as must
be evident. How will it be borne? How will Scripture vindicate itself
here again as the interpreter of nature? Shall we find it still a
spiritual realm; and its law therefore spiritual law? Let us see.

We
have, then, a quinary system which in a certain aspect of it is also a
ternary one. These numbers, three and five, are very prevalent in the
organic kingdoms. Among plants the flowers of exogens habitually have
their parts in fives, those of endogens in threes or multiples of
three. In the animal kingdom, the typical foot of the vertebrate is
divided into five, as the joints of the digits are typically three.
Three we have seen to be the number of the organic kingdoms, and that
which seems to stamp them as organic. Moreover, this specializing of
parts which is meant by organization implies also the unity of that for
which each part exists: the three readily connects with one, as we
know, and one writer has spoken of it as the number of "constitutional
completeness." It is thus a number well fitted to be used in the
arrangement of those organisms which are also, as it were, the organs
of the whole creation.

Of the number five in this connection
it is more difficult to speak. The meanings already ascribed to it suit
only man; not the lower creatures, except it be that which from the
human hand speaks of measured capacity - a not unsuitable meaning,
however, for do not these five types, in fact, measure the capacity of
that to which they apply? and may it not be that as the three speaks of
constitution, the five speaks of function? Thus would mammal, bird,
fish, amphibian, reptile give us the full range of function - thus the
practical meaning of the vertebrated animal. And good it is even to
think whether it perhaps may have a meaning! in this direction, if our
thought be infantile, it is none the less a good thing to begin to
think.

But now we must remember that each of these divisions
is a circle, if natural; when we have reached our fifth point we are on
our way back again to whence we started. Is it not strange, then, that
in this number five, as already looked at in an entirely different
interest, we have found a four and one - the four of the creature and
the one of God - actually met together! Thus, having started with one,
we get back to one again: there is a closing of the circle therefore!
and with blessed intimation of a meaning full of the inspiration of
hope!

For why have our naturalists had to give up that thought
of a linear series in nature, which even now, in a mere involuntary
retention of it in the Mind, spoils the great mass of systems?. Why but
because that linear series is either something in which we drop, ever
down without recovery away from God; or, it may be, ascend, but not
toward God, and so in result never to reach Him? This is atheistic
Darwinism in its real character, or, on the other hand, mere natural
godlessness, which allows - things to have come from Him, but will, not
have them return to Him. This quinary circle, read in the light of its
number, reader - a number which, remember, neither of its discoverers
knew as having meaning, - tells us that nature is a circle that begins
with God and returns to Him again: it is a planet that has its orbit
from Him, and more; its function and work are to bring us His message,
and lead us back to Him again.

Thus the system stands the
numerical test well, so far; does it not? Not only so, but the numbers
seem ready to bring out of it a wealth of meaning, - beyond what we
could have imagined. We have only begun, however; and have now to
examine, with Mr. Swainson's aid, these primary types of nature, and
see what more the interpretation of the numerical system may add to
this.

He says -
"As every natural group is first divided into
three circles, so it follows that there are three primary denominations
of groups; and these, as we have already explained, are called the
typical, the subtypical, and the aberrant: by these names we express
their denomination, and we shall now treat of each in detail.

"The
first distinction of TYPICAL groups is implied by the name they bear.
The animals they contain are the most perfectly organized, - that is to
say, are endowed with the greatest number of perfections, and capable
of performing to the greatest extent, the functions which peculiarly
characterize their respective circles. This is universal in all typical
groups; but there is a marked difference between the types of a typical
circle and the types of an aberrant one. In the first, we find a
combination of properties concentrated, as it were, in a certain
individual, without any one of these preponderating in a remarkable
degree over the others; whereas in the second, it is quite the reverse:
in these last, one faculty is developed in the highest degree, as if to
compensate for the total absence or very slight development of others.

"Let
us exemplify this proposition by familiar instances. The crow has been
considered the pre-eminent type of all birds, it is also the type of a
typical circle. It consequently unites in itself a greater number of
properties than are to be found individually in any other genus of
birds; as if, in fact, it had taken from all the other orders a portion
of their peculiar qualities, for the purpose of exhibiting in what
manner they could be combined. From the rapacious birds, this 'type of
types,' as the crow has been justly called, takes the power of soaring
in the air, and of seizing upon living birds, like the hawks, while its
habit of devouring putrid substances, and picking out the eyes of young
animals; is borrowed from the vultures. From the scansorial or climbing
order, it takes the faculty of pecking the ground and discovering its
food when hidden from the eye, while the parrot family gives it its
taste for vegetable food, and furnishes it with great cunning,
sagacity, and powers of imitation, even to imitating the human voice.
Next come the order of waders, who impart their quota to the perfection
of the crow by giving to it great powers of flight, and perfect
facility in walking, such being among the chief attributes of the
grallatorial order. Lastly, the aquatic birds contribute their portion
by giving this terrestrial bird the power, not only of feeding upon
fish, which are their peculiar food, but actually of occasionally
catching them. In this wonderful manner do we find the crow partially
invested with the united properties of all other birds, while in its
own order, - that of the Insessores, or perchers, - it stands the
pre-eminent type. Here, then, is an example of the characteristic
properties of the type of a typical circle.

"Let us look at the
type of an aberrant circle. The woodpecker is of this description, for
it is the permanent type of the climbing bird (Scansores) , which is an
aberrant tribe. Here, instead of finding a combination of diversified
characters similar to those belonging to the crow, the whole structure
becomes adapted for one particular purpose - that of climbing trees,
and extracting from them the allotted food."

I do not, for I
need not, proceed with the long and interesting description that
follows, of the way in which this is carried out. It is evident that in
the last case unity is exemplified in the very one-sidedness, or
narrowness, of the development. But on the other hand, it is not less,
but more, shown to the reflecting mind in that balance of attributes
which we find in the former one. Moral unity is shown in such a balance
of moral attributes in which is no defect and no excess. The idea is
better appreciated by our narrow minds when the idea is narrow. The
woodpecker is the typical climber, but the crow, the typical bird.

Unity
of idea, whether the idea be full or narrow, is, then, the
characteristic of the typical form. Mr. Swainson has not the least
suspicion of any meaning in numbers; yet he has here given the thought
as correctly as if he were writing with full knowledge. And he adds, -
"Perfection
in the number of species or of forms is also a remarkable and very
general character of pre-eminently typical groups; " illustrating, as
usual, with examples. This is, indeed, a consequence of that fullness
of idea which is found in whatever is pre-eminently typical. In the
crow, we have it exemplified in the species; but it may be equally well
in a genus, a family, or an order. And it is striking to find this as
fully characteristic of the first books of Scripture. Thus Genesis,
which heads the books of the Law, Isaiah, the first book of the
Prophets, the Psalms, which in the Hebrew begin the, poetical books,
have fully this character; and in the New Testament, Matthew, first of
the Gospels, Romans of Paul's epistles, 1 Peter (which, however, does
not with us stand, as it should, at the head of the catholic ones), are
plain examples in their respective sections. This may serve, with all
else here, to show how thoroughly the hand of One Writer is to be found
alike in the books of Nature and of Revelation.

Now let us pass on to the subtypical groups, and listen again to Mr. Swainson: -
"II.
Subtypical groups, as the name implies, are a degree lower in
organization than those last described, and thus exhibit an
intermediate character between typical and aberrant divisions. They do
not comprise the largest individuals in bulk, but always those which
are the most powerfully armed, either for inflicting injury on their
own class, for exciting terror, producing injury, or creating annoyance
to man. Their dispositions are often sanguinary; since the forms most
conspicuous among them live by rapine, and subsist on the blood of
other animals. They are, in short, symbolically the types of EVIL; and
in such an extraordinary way is this principle modified in the smaller
groups, that even among insects, where no other power is possessed but
that of causing annoyance or temporary pain, we find in the subtypical
order of the Annulosa (Aptera, Linn.), the different races of
scorpions, acari, spiders, and all those repulsive insects whose very
aspect is forbidding, and whose bite or sting is often capable of
inflicting serious bodily injury. If, again, we look to the subtypical
groups of quadrupeds and birds, this principle of evil is developed in
the highest degree; both are armed with powerful talons, both live on
slaughtered victims, and both are gloomy, unsocial, and untamable. The
formidable toothed bill which so strikingly distinguishes rapacious
birds, will be found in every group which represents them in the entire
order of perchers, and these groups amount to more than one hundred. .
. . Even in the smaller subtypical groups of larger circles, which are
themselves typical, this extraordinary characteristic is manifested,
though in a much smaller degree. Take, for instance, the American group
of monkeys (Cebidæ, Sw.) which belong to the typical order of
Quadrumanes; of that circle it is the subtypical group, and we
accordingly find that, while the family of true apes (Simiadæ) live,
in a state of nature, upon vegetable-diet alone, the Cebidæare
partially carnivorous, and that many prowl about to destroy life by
feeding upon insects, and even small birds."

He gives much
more to the same effect, but this is enough for our purpose; enough
indeed to create astonishment if there be room for it, after all that
we have had before us already. For how is it again that Mr. Swainson
gives us one of the characters of the number two, strongly marked in
Scripture and in Nature, while he says and knows nothing of the meaning
of the number which stands there side by side with the name of the
groups of which he speaks? It is now some years since, when studying
the grouping of the Psalms, that I found to my surprise that commonly
in a second series, whether of smaller divisions or of larger, and
often in the. second psalm of a very different group, the subject was
in some way the enemy. It was not till a good while after, that I found
the root of the meaning in. nature, two speaking naturally of
difference, hence of contrast, opposition, the enemy. And it was not
till later still, that I found in Mr. Swainson's book this definition
of his second subtypical groups. Is it, with all else that we have seen
in the same way, accident merely that it should be so? Will those say
it who know what the nature of chance is?

But if not chance, what is it? Is it not, then, surely truth, and of God?

Second; not first, for evil is necessarily inferior to the
good, - "a degree lower in organization than" the typical, says Mr.
Swainson. A type of evil ordained for us out of the animal creation, he
that will may find in Gen. iii. Is not this the secret of the strife in
nature that goes on around us, that God would thus provide us with such
object-lessons as are these? Does not spiritual law govern the natural
world still in all this?

No doubt there is much else in these
subtypical groups, and, if we are to conclude from what we find in
Scripture, this number will not always have an evil significance, but
often the reverse. However, we are just now following Mr. Swainson, and
it will be better to let these things develop themselves in practice
than to give ourselves to what may be mistaken theorizing. Let us go on
now to his third, or aberrant groups, which, however, as containing
three distinct types, he can only in general characterize as aberrant,
or departing from the more typical forms. We might call them more
appropriately, I think, specialized; and then at once shall find their
number as a third group quite in harmony with their character. The
nature of this specialization we shall learn as we take them up
separately now.

But these specialized groups stand in relation
to the first two, as 3, 4, and 5, while they all come under number
three of course also, as types more narrowly specialized than the first
two. We have to inquire yet what they individually mean. This is
literally true, while I write, that I am myself inquiring with my
reader, and propose to take him into my confidence, and think out my
thoughts aloud, as I have been doing in much that is already written.
There will be in it, thus, much of the charm of a voyage of discovery
for us both: who knows what surprises may be in store for us, and with
what argosies of treasure we may return to port? Meanwhile, as we have
taken Mr. Swainson for our pilot, at least as long as he shall give us
satisfaction, we will go on with him.

He says, -
"It will therefore be necessary to consider
aberrant groups as naturally divided into three distinct types. We
shall, for the present, distinguish these by the names we have assigned
to them in ornithology, the only division of zoology Wherein they have
been accurately traced. It maybe objected to this plan, that to
designate a type of quadrupeds or of insects by the same term as that
which is appropriated to birds will lead to a confusion of ideas. But
on the other hand, as these types, throughout the animal kingdom, are
found to present certain characters in common, the advantages of
designating them by common names are abundantly obvious. Hereafter,
when the subject has undergone deeper investigation, we shall suggest
more comprehensive and appropriate names. For the present, therefore,
we shall term them the Aquatic, the Suctorial, and the Rasorial: these
collectively form the aberrant circle of every group in the animal
kingdom.

"The NATATORIAL or AQUATIC types, represented by the
natatorial order of birds, as the name implies, are more especially
inhabitants of the waters. They possess many and striking
peculiarities, modified indeed, in the most astonishing manner, but
more conspicuous perhaps throughout all natural groups than any of
those belonging to other types. We shall consider these characters
under the heads of structure and economy, and exemplify our remarks by
some familiar instances.

"I. As to structure, aquatic types are
chiefly remarkable for their enormous bulk, the disproportionate size
of their head, and the absence or very slight development of the feet.
If we look to the primary divisions of the vertebrated animals we see
one of those peculiarities very strongly marked in the fishes, the only
class wherein the feet, in all individuals, are entirely wanting, while
every one is aware that no fish can exist unless in its own element . .
. . As we approach the more perfect animals, we begin to see the
development of another singular feature; namely, a very large, thick,
and obtuse head, furnished with jaws capable of great expansion; and
terminated by a blunt or truncated muzzle or snout. This structure
implies the peculiar power of seizing their food by the mouth alone,
without the assistance of feet or claws; and as this power would only
be necessary to such animals as lived upon others, we according find
that nearly all natatorial types are carnivorous . . . . Subtypical
forms, as we have already seen, are pre-eminently carnivorous, but they
differ from the natatorial (which always follow them) in this, that the
food is captured by the aid of the claws, whereas in the types we are
now speaking of the mouth alone is the instrument of capture.

"II.
As to the economy of the aquatic types, we have already premised that
they are almost entirely carnivorous - a habit which is naturally to be
expected in any group which joined, or immediately blended into, the
subtypical. We have seen that the feet are slightly and often not at
all developed an incapacity for quick motion is the natural result of
such an organization"

I have omitted Mr. Swainson's
illustrations, because they are not at present of any service to us,
though we may more or less have need of them at a future time. All we
want at present is the typical idea which we are then to proceed to
test by the meaning of the numbers. The number is 3, which easily may
here indicate specialization or transformation, as it is in outward
form indeed carried out in these forms to the extreme. Three is also
the number of solidity, which in popular phrase is applied to bulk; but
this is much more doubtful in application. To a strictly natatorial
type the number would not point, nor perhaps any number, and when Mr.
Swainson reckons as of this type the owl and the ostrich, it is plain
that he cannot mean to insist upon the absolute accuracy of the
designation. He can only mean that in the aquatic tribes we have in
general the best exemplification of the type. Of carnivorous habits
also the numbers say nothing.

What we might infer from the
numerical stamp would seem to be that we are at the furthest extreme
from the typical, as it fact we are nearly at the opposite point of the
circle, - the most transformed or in disguise: for the three is doubly
stamped upon it by its position in the quinary series and its position
also as a member of the aberrant circle.

It is clear that either
Mr. Swainson's definition somewhat fails here, or the power to apply
the numbers, or else the numbers do not apply. There is a faint
resemblance, but not at all what we have found before, or what we had
felt encouraged to expect. On the other hand there is no positive
disagreement either, and the clue to a fuller agreement may be found as
we go on to the fourth type with our guide.

"We are now to
consider the SUCTORIAL type of form: this corresponds with the
tenuirostral type among perching birds, the grallatorial among the
orders of that class, the gliriform among quadrupeds, and the
onisciform and vermiform in the class of insects. We shall, however,
designate all these order under the common name of suctorial, because
it is more generally applicable to the habits of the animals here
alluded to than any other. One of the chief peculiarities of this type
is, that the food is imbibed by suction; a mode of nourishment which is
of course accompanied by many remarkable deviations from the structure
of other types. These are always the smallest in point of size, the
most feeble and defenseless in structure, and the most defective in the
organs of mastication. In all these characters the suctorial stands in
direct opposition to the natatorial type. In such as belong to the
vertebrated circle, the feet are always fully developed; for these
animals are peculiarly active, and enjoy in a remarkable degree the
power of leaping and running The suctorial form is also widely
different from the natatorial in other respects; there is a great
length or attenuation of the body, the head is always very small,
generally prolonged into a pointed snout, and the mouth as adapted for
sucking is uncommonly small: in some few instances it is not, in fact,
apparent. All animals belonging to this type are shy, and evince little
or no propensity to become domesticated. They are without offensive
protection; but nature, as if to screen them from their enemies, has
endowed them with great caution, uncommon vitality, and in many cases
has protected them either with a bard skin, or a coating of bony armour
which entirely envelops their body, and repels all injury."

Here
it is evident that there is again a correspondence between the type and
its numerical stamp. "Weakness" is undoubtedly one of the most
fundamental meanings of the number 4, as it is the fundamental thought
in the type here. And if to this we add that it is the number of the
mineral kingdom, this might well remind us of the many of these to whom
it has been given, as to coral for instance, to provide for itself and
in its own structure, the strength of the rock as their defence. The
suctorial element in the type we can scarcely expect to find indicated
in the number; but on the whole there is a clear and unforced
correspondence between this and the type.

Only one more remains to be considered: -
"The
RASORIAL type, so termed in ornithology, is the third and last which
enters into the aberrant circle - which circle is always closed by the
union of this type with the NATATORIAL; hence it follows that they
approximate in their general characters. First, as to the form and
structure of rasorial types. They are, in general, remarkable for their
size; being inferior only to the natatorial. From these they are
further to be distinguished by the strength and perfection of their
feet; the toes of which (in vertebrated animals) are never united so as
to be used for swimming. This perfection, however, is of a very
peculiar kind; since it is contained to the powers of walking on dry
land, or of climbing among trees. These scansorial powers, in fact,
although occasionally found in other types, are so very frequent and
remarkable in this, that it may be considered one of the peculiarities
of the rasorial structure. This is the type so remarkable for the
greatest development of tail; and for those appendages, for ornament or
defence, which decorate the head . . . . But it seldom happens that
both these peculiarities are united in the same group . . . . The food,
in conformity to their dispositions, is almost always vegetable . . . .
This is again, one of the strong points of opposition between this and
the [natatorial] type.

"But what more especially distinguishes
the type we are now describing is the superior degree of intelligence
and docility that runs through all the groups of vertebrated animals
belonging to it. It seems to have been ordained by Almighty Wisdom,
that there should be one type above all others whose powers were to be
more especially devoted to man, and which should evince an aptitude and
a disposition to submit to his dominion, far above all other created
things. This is the grand characteristic of all rasorial types among
the more perfectly formed vertebrated animals, whose size or structure
are in any way adapted to answer the end proposed. This principle of
nature was partially perceived by Linnæus; an analogy, indeed, so
apparent to the commonest observer, that we can only feel surprise at
its ever having been questioned by any one, much more by those who are
naturalists . . . . All our quadrupeds of burden or of food are taken
from the Ungulata. The horse, the ox, the sheep, and the goat are in
our meadows and pastures; while the dog is a rasorial type of the
Fercæ."

I have quoted so much that we might have the
characters of: this type fairly before us. At first sight, it would
look as if they could be of no service, as we have already confessed as
to this number, 5, how little the thoughts that come under it seem to
apply to the lower creation. But it is one of the many encouragements
that we have been finding all the way through the present examination,
that the numbers not only interpret, but also receive interpretation
from nature; and so it is in this case. The number five as applied to
man, speaks of man with God, the 4 of the creature being added to the 1
of the Creator; and we have brought this forward already to show that
with 5 the circle closes therefore. But in the lower sphere in which we
now are penetrated everywhere as it is however with divine meaning the
1 represents man, instead of God, but man as His vicegerent and in His
image. Thus this last character of the rasorial type, as described by
Mr. Swainson, the "aptitude and disposition" of those exemplifying it
"to submit to his dominion," is surely as remarkable as unexpected an
illustration of the number before us. Man with God means man subject to
Him, under His dominion: here we have the shadow of that in the lower
creatures.

And thus, may we not say, at the end of the survey
of the creature, we are reminded by these examples that they, are put
into man's hand to be his servants, - a good and needed admonition of
the hand that bestows all, and to take reverently His gifts - gifts,
but thus trusts, even as this number 5 is the number which speaks also
of our own responsibility, and of the account we have to render to Him
who has bestowed the gift.