1910.] Illiger; the Philosophical Zoologists. 71 



Fam. Ciiigulata' (Tolypeutes, Dasypus). 



" Vermilinguia' (Orycteropus, Myrmecophaga, Manis). 



Ordo X. Reptantia.' 



Fam. Reptantia' (Tachyglossus, Ornithorhynchus, Pamphractus) . 



Ordo XI. Volitantia.' 



Fam. Dermoptera (Galeopithecus). 



" Chiroptera [Blumenbach] (Pteropus, Harpyia, Vespertilio, Nycteris, 



Rhinolophus, Phyllostomus, Noctilio, Saccopteryx, Dy- 

 sopes) . 

 Ordo XII. Faculata' [cf. "les Carnassiers" Cuvier]. 



Fam. Subterranea' (Erinaceus, Centetes, Sorex, Mygale, Condylura, Chry- 



sochloris, Scalops, Talpa). 

 " Plantigrada' (Cercoleptes, Nasua, Procyon, Gulo, Meles, Ursus). 



" Sanguinaria^ (Megalotis, Canis, Hyiena, Felis, Viverra, Ryzsena 



[Viverra tetradactyla]). 

 " Gracilia' (Herpestes Mephitis Mustek, Lutra). 



Ordo XIII. Pinnipedia (cf. Storr]. 



Fam. Pinnipedia (Phoca, Trichechus [Walrus]). 



Ordo XIV. Natantia' [cf. "les Amphibies" Cuvier]. 

 Fam. Sirenia (Manatus, Halicore, Rytina). 



" Cete (Balsena, Ceratodon [Narwal], Ancylodon [Hyperoodon], Phy- 



seter, Delphinus, Uranodon [Hyperoodon]). 



THE "philosophical ZOOLOGISTS," CIRCA 1783-1847. 



In the \vor]\ of Cuvier and the majority of his contemporaries the prin- 

 ciples of classification adopted were largely such as naturally flowed from 

 a practical acquaintance with zoological material; the criteria of classifi- 

 cation were for the most part of the convenient but rather superficial kind 

 that had been adopted by the fathers of zoology. Ideas as to what con- 

 stituted the ultimate basis of a natural classification were still confused. 

 Descent with modification as the cause both of divergent structure and of 

 homo logical resemblances remained virtually undiscover.d or at best but 

 imperfectly perceived (Goethe). Many partly false ex]3lanations of homo- 

 logical resemblances and ecjually misleading criteria of classification sprang 

 up, ranging in character from the elaborate, purely ''metaphysical" and 

 mediaeval speculations of Oken to the relatively simple and at least rather 

 fruitful conceptions of the unity of type, held in different forms by Goethe, 

 Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Owen, de Blainville, etc. 



The movement has been fully treated in various aspects by Huxley 

 (1894, pp. 283-304), Osborn (1899, pp. 122-127, 181-187) and Gill (1907, 

 pp. 501-502) and therefore here requires notice only in so far as it affected 

 the ordinal classification of the Mammalia. 



1 New term. 



