Review of the Development of Natural Histonj as a Science. 79 



us nothing. The sixteenth century witnessed a temporary revival in this 

 and other branches of learning. The minds of men were then chiefly 

 occupied in contemplating the policy and achievements of those great 

 military heroes, the emperor Charles V., Frances IV., Philip 11., 

 and Henry IV., while the religious tendencies of the age found 

 expression in Luther and the Reformation. The naturalists of 

 this century were mainly occupied in studying local species, and 

 disputing over ancient authors; therefore, their labor did but 

 little good beyond keeping alive some interest in the study. The 

 seventeenth century witnessed remarkable advances in general 

 knowledge, but men had not yet ceased wondering over the successful 

 revolt of the Netherlands, and the brilliant military careers of Gustavus 

 Adolphus, Wallenstein, and Tilly. 



In an age when war formed the chief occupation of men, and the 

 profession of arms furnished almost the only avenues to distinction, it 

 is no marvel that learning was neglected, or cultivated merely by the 

 few. It was reserved, then, for Linnaeus, in the last century, to 

 break the spell that had for so many ages retarded the development 

 of natural science, and strike the key-note that aroused the 

 scholars of Europe from their lethargy. Aristotle had given us 

 genera and species. He had divided the animal kingdom into the 

 Enaima and Anaima, or blooded and bloodless animals. But he failed 

 to provide any well defined system of classification, by separating 

 animals into their natural groups ; or to describe them, except Ln the 

 common language of the day. Linnteus, beginning where Aristotle left 

 off, established, in addition to genera and species, classes and orders. 

 He divided the animal kingdom into six classes : Mammalia, Birds, 

 Reptiles, Fishes, Insects, and Worms. But defects were discovered 

 in this grouping. The class Mammalia he at first called the Quadru- 

 pedia, meaning four-legged, fur-bearing animals, bringing forth 

 living young, thus excluding a division of mammalia, the Cetaceans, or 

 whales, etc. 



This classification of Linnseus at once aroused the attention and 

 provoked the criticism of naturalists. The result was salutary. The 

 defects of the new system were pointed out, and the important prin- 

 ciple of a classification founded upon internal structure — by which 

 animals are grouped upon common structural characters — was estab- 

 lished. Linnaeus, in "his ^sterna Naturoe, corrects many of his pre- 

 vious errors. The active study of natural history led to many other 

 classifications besides that of Linnaius; to him, however, belongs the 

 credit of awakening inquiry in this direction, and of making the first 

 attempt at a comprehensive system of grouping, that should embrace 



