NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE, 1700-1800 319 



In the time of Aristotle man took his place naturally at the head 

 of the other animals. . . . But the influence of religion and phi- 

 losophy did not long permit of this association. Man came to be 

 regarded as the chef-d'oeuvre of creation, a thing apart ' a little lower 

 than the angels.' In the eighteenth century came a startling change, 

 man was wrenched from this detached and isolated attitude and 

 linked on once more to the beasts of the field. This was the work 

 of Linnaeus. . . . 



Buffon did not classify, he described . . . the genius of Linnaeus 

 lay in classification. Order and method were with him a passion. 

 In his Systcma naturae he fixed the place of man in nature, arranging 

 Homo sapiens as a distinct species in the order Primates, together 

 with the apes, the lemurs and the bats. Haddon. 



PROGRESS IN COMPARATIVE ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY. The 

 seventeenth century was peculiarly rich in physiological and 

 anatomical discoveries, largely because it was endowed with a man 

 of genius in physiology, Harvey, and with a new and valuable 

 instrument, the compound microscope. It is true that this 

 last did not fulfil its promise, because of mechanical defects, but 

 it was good enough to enable Malpighi to clinch with positive 

 proof Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood, besides re- 

 vealing certain anatomical features of spleen and kidney, hitherto 

 unknown. In 1743 Haller (1707-1777) of Berne proved that the 

 muscles do not depend for their contractility, as had been sup- 

 posed, upon "vital spirits" sent in through the nerves, but possess 

 independent and intrinsic powers of contraction even when sepa- 

 arated from the nervous system or from the body itself. This im- 

 portant discovery, together with much excellent anatomical work, 

 was made by Haller at Gottingen, where he was professor "of 

 anatomy, surgery, and botany" and whither he soon drew 

 large numbers of enthusiastic pupils. Haller will long be re- 

 membered, not only for his great work in physiology and in teaching, 

 but also as one of the founders of comparative anatomy. In 

 this subject, however, he was soon left far behind by the famous 

 John Hunter (1728-1793) and William Hunter, his brother. 



We must not omit to observe that with comparative anatomy, 



