1910.] Summnry of Linne's Contributions to Systematic Mammalogy. 35 



1875, ]). V.) Linnpeus thus attempted to classify animals by what they did 

 (cf., his employment of ^ait, manner of feeding, etc.), as well as by their 

 physical characters. The whole animal with all its attributes, psychic, 

 physiological and anatomical should be considered, he thought, in drawing 

 up classifications. This was assuredly an ideal, which those of his suc- 

 cessors who founded their classifications on a single character or even on a 

 narrow range of characters, would have done well to remember. 



In fine, Linne's signal contributions to the classification of mammals 

 were as follows : 



(1) He sunnnarized existing knowledge of the mammals, transmitting 

 and developing the excellent work of Ray and making readily available the 

 discoveries in the New Workl and in the East. 



(2) He further systematized the study of mammals by giving brief 

 specific descriptions. 



(3) He employed the "trivial," or common name (often invented where 

 necessary) as a convenient substitute and representative of the full specific 

 "differentia," placing it after the generic name in the now familiar binomial 

 form. 



(4) He consistently applied this binom.ial nomenclature throughout the 

 animal kingdom, whereas earlier authors had only occasionally employed 

 names that were binomial in form only. 



(5) The way thereto having been prepared by Ray, Brisson and Bernard 

 de Jussieu, linnaeus finally brought together the Cetaceans and the terres- 

 trial hairy quadrupeds within a single class. 



(6) He emphasized the possession of mammte and the secretion of milk 

 as a peculiarity of that class; and 



(7) invented for it the apt term "Mammalia." 



(8) He realized that man was structurally a member of that class and 

 more particularly allied to the apes and monkeys; and accordingly he 



(9) erected the order "Primates" to comprise man and his lowly 

 relatives. 



(10) A notable feature of Linne's classification of the mammals was the 

 comparatively large range of characters chosen for the ordinal diagnoses. 



(11) He used the number and characters of the teeth and feet only in 

 so far as they were evidently related to other characters and to the economy 

 of the animal. 



(12) He regarded sustenance and the adaptations in habit and structure 

 for securing and digesting food as perhaps the most important criterion of 

 relationship. 



(13) He clearly recognized the principles of adaptation and of the co- 

 adaptation of parts. 



