460 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1907. 
were true amphibians and gave satisfactory reasons for his assump- 
tion, though to the last Cuvier (1829) considered them to be merely 
a family of the ophidians. As Blainville claimed, he based his 
classification on anatomical facts.¢ 
A pupil of Blainville, Ferdinand L’Herminier of the island of 
Guadeloupe, at the instance and following the lead of his master 
(1827), undertook the comparative study of the sternal apparatus 
of birds and thereby discovered a key to the natural relationship of 
many types which anticipated by many years the views now current. 
For instance, L’Herminier first correctly appreciated the differences 
of the ostriches and penguins from other birds, the difference between 
the passerines and swifts, the homogeneity of the former, and the 
affinity of the humming birds and the swifts. Meanwhile Cuvier, 
like Linné, was content to accept as the basis for his primary classi- 
fication of birds, superficial modifications of the bill and feet (toes 
and nails) which led to many unnatural associations as well as sepa- 
rations, but which nevertheless have been persisted in even to our own 
day by many ornithologists. 
Now what could have been the underlying idea which hindered the 
foremost comparative anatomist of his age from the recognition of 
what are now considered to be elementary truths and what enabled 
Blainville to forge so far ahead? Cuvier manifestly allowed himself 
to be influenced by the sentiment prevalent in his time, that systematic 
zoology and comparative anatomy were different provinces. It may, 
indeed, seem strange to make the charge against the preeminent anat- 
omist, that he failed because he neglected anatomy, but it must be- 
come evident to all who carefully analyze his zoological works that 
such neglect was his prime fault. He, in fact, treated zoology and 
anatomy as distinct disciplines, or, in other words, he acted on the 
principle that animals should be considered independently from two 
points of view, the superficial, for those facts easily observed, and 
the profound, or anatomical characters. Blainville, on the contrary, 
almost from the first, considered animals in their entirety and would 
estimate their relations by a view of the entire organization.2 Yet 
a“ Ses bases sont anatomiques et surtout tirées de la consideration du crane.” 
Bull. Sci. Soe. Philom., 1816, p. 111. 
>The comparison instituted between Cuvier and Blainville is more than just 
to the former. Cuvier was not only eight years older than Blainville but 
longer and better established in scientific circles; he had also more control of 
scientific material and laboratories; he must also have known the anatomical 
facts as well as Blainville. The difference between the two, therefore, resulted 
from the manner in which they used the facilities at hand and the intellectual 
powers they applied to the consideration of the problems involved. While 
sometimes Cuvier more nearly anticipated conclusions now adopted, Blainville 
did so much more frequently. If, then, modern biologists are right, the man 
who approached nearest to them must be regarded pro tanto as the superior. 
