Now it is clear that from an investigation of all three classes just mentioned, we shall be able to gain an idea of those points which are common to all parts, to all individuals or to all aggregates, and those that are peculiar to some of them, and, by eliminating the one from the other, we shall arrive at conclusions which will be more or less generally accurate or applicable, according to the ability of the student and the extent to which the comparative analysis is earned. It is thus that morphologists have been enabled to frame types or standards of reference, and systematists to collocate the organisms they deal with into groups. These standards and groups are more or less artificial (none can be entirely natural) in proportion to the amount of knowledge possessed by their framers, and the use they make of it. From this point of view teratological metamorphosis of all three kinds demands as much attention as that which is called normal. We can have no thorough knowledge of an organ, of an individual which is an aggregate of organs, or of an aggregate of individuals of whatever degree, unless we know approximately, at least, what are the limits of each. It is not possible to trace these limits accurately in the case of natural science, but the larger our knowledge and the wider our generalisations, the closer will be our approach to the truth. The most satisfactory classification of malformations would be one founded upon the nature of the causes inducing the several changes. Thus, in all organised beings, there is a process of growth, mere increase in bulk as it were, and a process of evolution or metamorphosis, in accordance with which certain parts assume a different form from the rest, in order the better to fit them for the performance of different offices. Should growth and development be uniform and regular, that is in accordance with what is habitual in any particular species, there is no monstrosity, but if either growth or development be in any way irregular, malformation results. Hence, theoretically, the best way of grouping cases of malformation would be according as they are the consequences of:--1st. Arrest of Growth; 2ndly. Excessive Growth; 3rdly. Arrest of Development; 4thly, of Excessive or Irregular Development. In practice, however, there are so many objections to this plan that it has not been found practicable to carry it out. The inability arises to a great extent from our ignorance of what should be attributed to arrest of growth, what to excess of development, and so on. Moreover, a student with a malformed plant before him must necessarily ascertain in what way it is malformed before he can understand how it became so, and for this purpose any scheme that will enable him readily to detect the kind of monstrosity he is examining, even though it be confessedly artificial and imperfect will be better than a more philosophical arrangement which circumstances prevent him from employing.