54 Bulletin American Museum, of Natural History. [Vol. XXVII, 



pedes," "Ruminans," "Porcini," "Ailepieds"). These names are very 

 well chosen and several of them (Rongeurs = Rodentia, Edentes, Carni- 

 vores) were commonly used by later authors. 



The sequence of the orders, with some exceptions and improvements, 

 is like that adopted from Linnseus by Blumenbach, namely, beginning with 

 the monkeys and ending with the ungulates. The Cetacea are not dis- 

 cussed and probably, as in Brisson's work, were regarded as a distinct class. 



About the only other significant resemblance to Blumenbach's classi- 

 fication of 1779 is shown in the circumstance that the bats are allowed ordinal 

 rank under the name "Ailepieds," a term suggesting Blumenbach's ''Chirop- 

 tera." More striking is the resemblance to Storr's system seen in the terms 

 "Pedimanes" [recalling Storr's "Manuati," "Palmares," etc.], "Rongeurs" 

 (etymologically related to Storr's "Rosores"), "Empetres" (a new term but 

 coextensive with Storr's "Pinnipedia"). 



According to Isidore Geoffroy (1S32) this classification was not orig- 

 inal with Vicq d'Azyi* but with Daubenton. At any rate Vicq d'Azyr had 

 the advantage of Daubenton's study and dissections of many iy^ea of 

 mammals. He is therefore impressed rather with the differences than with 

 the resemblances between mammalian groups and consequently does not 

 attempt the larger groupings given by Storr and Blumenbach. His classi- 

 fication deals only with the Quadrupeds, and so man and the Cetaceans are 

 omitted from the list. The remaining mammals are distributed among 14 

 orders as against 10 in Blumenbach's system and 7 in Storr's. Several 

 unnatural assemblages of previous authors are thus broken up (e. g., 

 Bestise, Belluae). In certain cases this tendency even results in separating 

 closely allied forms, e. g., the Moles ("Taupens") from the Shrews 

 ("Musaraignes"). On the other hand the old group of amphibious ani- 

 mals here called "Empetres" remains undissolved, the Manatees being left 

 in an unnatural alliance with the seals and walruses. 



Notwithstanding Vicq d'Azyr's observations on the unity of type in 

 vertebrate limbs he here follows the ecole de fails, neither classifying the 

 mammals according to any a priori principles, nor troubling about hidden 

 bonds of affinity, as did Linnseus. Nor did he overemphasize the characters 

 of the feet or of the teeth as ordinal criteria, as did Brisson, Cuvier, and many 

 others. And from a practical point of view the net results are an advance 

 upon all preceding classifications. 



Practically every one of the groups recognized, with the exception of the 

 Empetres (which indeed only required to be freed from Manatus to leave 

 a natural residuum) correspond with families, suborders or orders now in 

 use. And just as Linne's classification of 1735 was less specialized and in 

 many respects less unnatural than his later one of 1758, so the first classifi- 



