1910.] Cuvier and Com,parative Anatomy in ISOO. 63 



Division II. Des ailes membranenses. Mammiferes ailes. 



Sous-Division I. Les pieds de devant garnis de membranes en forme d'ailcs. 

 Cheiropteres. 

 Ordre XVI. Dents incisives, laniaires et molaires. 



Genres: Vespertilio, Spectrum, Rhinolophus, Phyllostomus, Galeo- 

 pithecus. 

 Ordre XXII. Dents laniaires et molaires. 

 Genre: Noctilio. 



Division III. De nageoires. MAMMIFERES MARINES. 



Sous Division I. Les pieds de derriere en forme de nageoires. EmpIitres. 

 Ordre XVIII. Dents incisives, laniaires et molaires. 



Genres: Phoca, Trichecus (T. rosmarus). 

 Ordre XIX. Dents laniaires et molaires. 



Genre : Dugong. 

 Ordre XX. Dents molaires. 

 Genre: Manatus. 

 Sous-Division II. Point de pieds de derriere. Cet.ices. 

 Ordre XXI Dents molaires. 



Genres: Delphinus, Physeter, Monodon. 

 Ordre XXII. Point de dents. 

 Genre: Balsena. 



G. CUVIER, 1800. 

 'Le9ons d'Anatomie Comparee.' 



In 1800 the 'Tableau Elementaire' was supplemented by the first volume 

 of the 'Lemons d'Anatomie Comparee' (Paris An. VIII) which continued 

 to appear at intervals. In this work the osteology, myology, histology and 

 other branches of the morphology of man, the mammals, birds, reptiles, 

 fishes and invertebrates, are very fully treated. 



Cuvier was hardly the founder of comparative anatomy to the same 

 degree in which he may be said to be the founder of vertebrate palaeontology. 

 He found in Paris an active group of naturalists and anatomists, and the 

 collaboration with his older colleague Geoffroy may be said to have inducted 

 him into the subject. As he himself cheerfully acknowledges in the work now 

 under consideration he was inspired to his own famous investigations 

 by the example of Bloch, Fabricius, Ray, Linnseus, Klein, Buffon, Dauben- 

 ton, Mertrud, Duvernoy, Vicq d'Az\T, Geoffroy, Lacepede, and Lamarck, 

 as well as of Pallas and other naturalist explorers. 



If, however, Cuvier did not create comparative anatomy, he at least 

 organized it. Under his hand both the content and methods of the subject 

 expanded so enormously as to justify the general opinion that he was "prac- 

 tically the creator of comparative anatomy and palaeontology in their modern 

 shape" (Huxley, 1894, p. 312). 



