Cuvier as a Naturalist. ^^ 



preciate the wisdom and infinite knowledge of the author of 

 nature, saw in organized beings a unity of composition, in vir- 

 tue of which they could only be modifications of a particular 

 plan ; or rather, for they do not agree on this point, a blending 

 of a certain number of simple beings, to form others of a more 

 complex and perfect kind. 



This theory has been compared, inaccurately as we conceive, 

 with the laws of Kepler and Newton, with the laws of mechanics 

 and general physics which extend to all space, and which regulate 

 not only our planetary system, but every body throughout the 

 universe. If a comparison must be established between these 

 laws and those which govern living bodies, it can be done with 

 those only which are physiological. These are, in truth, gene- 

 ral, and each may be applied to all the beings provided with 

 organs in which it can be exercised. Beyond doubt, nutrition 

 is performed in all animals by the same powers, and so with re- 

 production. In all animals with a nervous centre, nervous phe- 

 nomena are produced in the same manner. So the laws which 

 govern the functions, and which probably also regulate the ani- 

 mal kingdom, are general, and as immutable as the laws of 

 physics, from which indeed they do not perhaps differ. In this 

 sense there is undoubtedly a unity, and we are not aware that 

 any one disputes it ; but the question which is now before us is 

 a question of the forms, or intention, which is of another cha- 

 racter, but which also finds applications when referred to the 

 planetary system, and the organic world. The laws of Kepler 

 and Newton do not interfere with the fact, that the form of Sa- 

 turn is different from that of other planets, and that certain of 

 them have many satellites, whilst others have none, so that even 

 for these dead bodies, there is not a unity of composition, a 

 unity of plan. No more do the physiological laws of organized 

 beings hinder their forms from varying according to their differ- 

 ent destinies. But it is the form, and the organs, which reveal 

 the destiny. The form then, has changed, the organs have been 

 simplified, or complicated, when the end is different, when the 

 intention requires it. The eagle and the serpent could not have 

 the same form, and could not be provided with the same organs, 

 and yet their physiological functions are performed by the same 

 means, — they are the same. Moss and the oak vegetate by the 



