LAMARCK THE ZOOLOGIST I 
ioe) 
— 
physiologists, the last-named being the first to pro- 
pose and use the term “ comparative anatomy,” while 
Bichat was the founder of histology and pathological 
anatomy. There was in fact no prominent systematic 
zodlogist in the interval between Linné and Lamarck. 
In France there were only two zoélogists of promi- 
nence when Lamarck assumed his duties at the Mu- 
seum. These were Bruguiére the conchologist and 
Olivier the entomologist. In Germany Hermann was 
the leading systematic zodlogist. We would not for- 
get the labors of the great German anatomist and 
physiologist Blumenbach, who was also the founder 
of anthropology; nor the German anatomists Tiede- 
mann, Bojanus, and Carus; nor the embryologist 
Déllinger. But Lamarck’s method and point of view 
were of a new order—he was much more than a mere 
systematist. His work in systematic zodlogy, un-| 
like that of Linné, and especially of Cuvier, was that of 
a far higher grade. Lamarck, besides his rigid, analyt- 
ical, thorough, and comprehensive work on the inver- 
tebrates, whereby he evolved order and system out of 
the chaotic mass of forms comprised in the Insects 
and Vermes of Linné, was animated with conceptions 
and theories to which his forerunners and contem- 
poraries, Geoffroy St. Hilaire excepted, were entire 
strangers. His tabular view of the classes of the 
animal kingdom was to his mind a genealogical tree; 
his idea of the animal kingdom anticipated and was 
akin to that of our day. He compares the animal 
series to a tree with its numerous branches, rather 
than to a single chain of being. This series, as he 
expressly states, began with the monad and ended 
