1910.] Progress since 1859; Owen, 1868. 89 



has occasioned an extensive literature, centering around the celebrated 

 'Theory of Trituberculy' of Cope and Osborn. This subject is very fully 

 dealt with in Osborn's 'Evolution of Mammalian ]\Iolar Teeth' (1907), 

 and in the succeeding fha])ters (pp. 181-194). 



In regard to ordinal classification, the chief innovator since Huxley's 

 time was Cope. But Cope's classifications were founded to far too great an 

 extent upon single characters. His theories in regard to the evolution and 

 interrelations of the unguiculate and ungulate orders, and his resulting ordi- 

 nal classifications, have gradually been crumbling, and recent authors (Weber, 

 1904, Osborn, 1907) have returned to a more conservative development of 

 the classification adopted by Huxley and developed by Flower. (See below.) 



The chief contribution of the present and immediately preceding genera- 

 tion of workers is the long series of monographs on fossil genera and faunas; 

 and here many names in addition to those cited above come to mind, but 

 especially Leidy, ^Nlarsh, Kowalevsky, Gaudry, Deperet, Schlosser, Forsyth 

 Major, Lydekker, Andrews, Ameghino, Wortman, Hatcher, Matthew. 

 Nor should we omit the names of those who have devoted many years of 

 unselfish labor to the compilation of such useful works as Trouessart's 

 'Catalogus Mammalium,' Hay's 'Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil 

 Vertebrata of North America,' Palmer's 'Index Generum Mammalium.' 

 Finally, reference may again be made to Weber's great work ' Die Saugetiere', 

 which has joined, to a degree not before attempted, the chief results of 

 palaeontology, with the vast, but, it must be confessed, hitherto rather 

 uncoordinated results of comparative anatomy. 



This outline history of the ordinal classification of the mammals may be 

 concluded with a brief reference to a few of the more important and most 

 representative systems which have appeared since 1859.^ 



OWEN, 1868. 

 'On the Anatomy of Vertebrates,' Vol. Ill, Mammals, pp. 839-847. 



The first classification among those selected for reproduction is compiled 

 from the zoological index of the work cited above and was thus not a formal 

 classification; but nevertheless it serves to reveal the "British Cuvier's" 

 ideas on ordinal relationships. In its general lines the classification appears 

 to be a modification of that proposed by Bonaparte in 1837, which was in 

 turn under obligations to the systems of Linnaeus, Cuvier and de Blainville. 

 Bonaparte's "Ineducabilia" and "Educabilia" are represented in Owen's 

 system by the "subclasses" " Gyrencephala " and " Lissencephala," but the 

 "Bimana" are set off in a new subclass "Archencephala." The "Ovovi- 



1 Lack of space forbids the attempt to trace in detail the exact source of each idea noted 

 in these classifications, and it is possible that in some instances ideas which here seem to be 

 credited to a particular author may have been partly borrowed and partly original. 



