1910.] PerrauU. 39 



In order to understand the origin of the classifications of the Cuvierian 

 epoch it is necessary to go back to a date (1731) slightly earlier than that of 

 the first edition of Linne's 'Systema Naturae/ and to follow the rise of two 

 general lines of investigation, namely comparative anatomy and ordinal 

 classification, which began in France independently of Linne's work. 

 Perrault and Daubenton represent successive stages in the development of 

 comparative anatomy; Brisson's and Pennant's ordinal classifications may 

 be regarded as offshoots of the Raian methods, while the works of Blumen- 

 bach, Storr, Vicq d'Az\T and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire furnish the inter- 

 mediate stages which connect the Linnsean with the Cuvierian systems. 

 Consequently the above-mentioned authors, down to Cuvier, are here 

 brought together as a transitional group, and the whole movement leading 

 up to Cuvier is called the " pre-Cuvierian epoch." 



PERRAULT, 1731. 



'JNIemoires pour servir a I'Histoire Naturelle des Animaux.' La Haye, 



2vols., 4to. ■ 



The work edited by Perrault is especially noteworthy because it illustrates 

 the status and ideals of natural history in France during the reign of Louis 

 XV. It records the results of a series of dissections performed upon exotic 

 animals from the Jardin du Roi, by a committee of the Royal Academy of 

 Sciences. The work is animated by the spirit of the "ecole des faits" and 

 illustrates both the search for absolute certainty and the reaction against 

 all theory and generalization, — tendencies which were characteristic of the 

 science of the period. The authors remind us that natural history had long 

 been burdened with error and overgrown with fanciful speculation. They 

 had proposed to themselves the task of accumulating a body of anatomical 

 facts, each of which was to be attested and authenticated by the whole 

 committee. Each detail of their figures likewise was to be attested, after 

 having been drawn by one of their own members, by a hand guided by 

 science as well as by art, "parce que I'importance en ceci n'est pas tant de 

 bien representer ce que I'on voit, que de bien voir comme il faut ce que Ton 

 veut representer." And they will not, for example, affirm aught of Bears in 

 general, "nous disons seulement qu'un Ours que nous avons disseque avoit 

 la conformation tout-a-fait particuliere." They profess to hope that upon 

 such a foundation of concrete facts some Aristotle of the future may build a 

 secure philosophy, a veracious Natural History. They do not appear to be 

 aware that such an Aristotle, in the person of John Ray, had in a sense 

 already arisen and that another great genius, Linnaeus, was even then arising. 



