OLD AND NEW METHODS IN ZOOLOGY. 21 



quences of the observations which, he interpreted, Bnffon sought 

 rather to foresee what should be or ought to be, than to fix what 

 he ascertained. He was thus often in advance of his tirne, and 

 the elevated considerations to which he gave himself were within 

 the grasp of only a small number. Linnaeus, on the contrary, 

 described, simply and clearly, what was. With such qualities 

 these two men would often be far from agreeing ; and we might 

 apply to them the distinction, which had not yet been expressed, 

 between the school of facts and the school of reasoning. While 

 Linnaeus and Buff on thus summarized in themselves all of zoology, 

 although from different points of view, their labors lacked a basis 

 the imperious need of which was universally felt. It was already 

 beginning to be understood that the study of the habits, geograph- 

 ical origin, and external characteristics of animals was not enough. 

 At that moment Cuvier appeared. The reform which he intro- 

 duced in zoology was very important, and his work, on the " Ani- 

 mal Kingdom distributed according to its Organization/' produced 

 a momentous impression. His great fame, like that of Linnaeus, 

 is due to the fact that the modification he made in zoological 

 studies corresponded to a certain want, and was a necessary re- 

 form that came at the time when it was most needed. Zoologists 

 of the classifying kind, who occupy themselves only with the ex- 

 ternals of animals, have been compared to librarians who arrange 

 their libraries according to the backs or covers of the books, with- 

 out regard to what is within them. It was Cuvier's great merit 

 that he saw clearly that to reach a truer knowledge of things we 

 must not only be acquainted with the names and external feat- 

 ures, but with the internal characteristics as well. To that end he 

 introduced the anatomical idea into the history of animals. In 

 doing it he rendered the greatest service to zoology ; and to this, 

 too, must be attributed his great success, which was equaled only 

 by that of Linnaeus, and also the great reputation in which French 

 zoology shone at the beginning of the century. To-day, even 

 those zoologists who criticise Cuvier the most, nevertheless follow 

 his precepts. We can not apply the same standards of criticism to 

 his work that we would insist upon in judging a work of to-day. 

 To make an equitable estimate, we should put ourselves back to 

 his time, and take account of the gaps in the knowledge of that 

 period, and of the insufficiency of the means which observers could 

 control. It will soon have been a hundred years since Cuvier's 

 work was performed. In that time a great many discoveries have 

 been made, and many conquests have been achieved to cast a new 

 light on questions which were insoluble then. 



Zoology remained for a long time at the point to which Cuvier 

 led it ; and we have to come to the middle of our century to see 

 new ideas brooding and bringing about great modifications in the 



