Scientific Revieivs, 113 



Whether the expression of M. GeoflFroy be exact or not, his mean- 

 ing could not be mistaken. He wished to say, that all animals are 

 the products of the same system of composition, and result from an 

 assemblage of organic parts which are constantly repeated. 



But, " explain yourself," it has been said. '' Do you speak of 

 absolute identity, or simply of analogies of resemblance ?" M. 

 Geoffroy answers, that he has never pretended to speak of anything 

 but analogies of resemblance. " Then you have told us nothing 

 new. And, far from having placed zoology on a new foundation, 

 as you pretend, you have only repeated a principle known to Aris- 

 totle, and the confirmation of which has been the object of all na- 

 turalists worthy of the name." 



That the first germ of the theory of analogies may be found in 

 Aristotle, M. Geoffroy is far from wishing to deny. Indeed he 

 has always been careful to point out the writings of this great man 

 as the first source of the doctrines which he proclaims ; and, as M. 

 Cuvier has remarked, he is by no means the first who has sought to 

 develope and apply the ideas entertained by the Greek philosopher. 



In the year 1555, Belon placed together the skeleton of a man 

 and that of a bird, with the view of observing the correspondence 

 of parts between the two species. 



Bacon, in his Novum Organon, declared the most indispensible 

 quality of a naturalist to be " a certain active sagacity which would 

 enable him to seize physical conformities." 



Newton, who had embraced with so much genius the relations 

 of conformity in the planetary masses, did not doubt that the ani- 

 mal organization was regulated by a similar uniformity. In cor- 

 poribus animalium, he said, in omnibus fere similiter posita omnia. 



JMust we conclude from these concessions that MM. Cuvier and 

 Geoffroy are almost agreed? Certainly not; and the difference 

 between them is greater than even M. Cuvier supposes. 



In the first place, what is found in the works of Aristotle rela- 

 tive to this principle, is evidently confined to an expression of 

 very confused generalities, some true and others false. Superior 

 minds appropriate the former, and labour to develope them ; but 

 the latter have only been echoed by those who confine themselves 

 to the study of differences. 



As to M. Geoffroy, he has not limited himself to the reception 

 of his ideas from Aristotle ; he has sought the truth from nature 

 herself; he has interrogated facts, and has descended into the ex- 

 amination of the most minute details, and his conviction is the fruit 

 of personal study. A more attentive examination, and a new mode 

 of investigation have shown him resemblances where heretofore no- 

 thing but differences had been perceived. The differences between 

 the naturalists who still maintain the ancient ideas of the Aristo- 

 telian school, and those who adopt the theory of analogies as taught 

 by M. St. Hilaire, are immense. The ancient school admits, with 

 M. Cuvier, the analogy of organs only to a certain extent. INI. 

 Geoffroy, on the contrary, sees no exception to his great law. 



