108 MEMOIR OF ARISTOTLE. 



has been adopted by almost if not all modern natu- 

 ralists, if we except Lamarck. Cuvier, Aristotle's 

 great rival in this department, has not only followed 

 it, but seems literally to have copied his descriptions 

 in some natural groups and individual species of ani- 

 mals, particularly the class of Mammalia. Professor 

 Kidd of Oxford, in his Bridgewater Treatise on the 

 " Physical Condition of Man," to which we are in- 

 debted for some of the preceding remarks, has exhi- 

 hired in parallel columns a comparison between the 

 Grecian and the French philosopher in their phy- 

 siological account of certain species ; arid he con- 

 cludes that, with respect to those points in the his- 

 tory of animals equally accessible to both writers, 

 the descriptions of the former are hardly inferior in 

 accuracy to those of the latter. The examples ad- 

 duced are those of man, ruminating animals, ceta- 

 ceous animals, the elephant, the lion, the ape, the 

 mole, the hedgehog, and the porcupine. " Nor does 

 this observation" (continues the learned Professor) 

 " hold with reference to the more common animals 

 only: it is equally remarkable with reference to those 

 which are of comparative rarity; in support of which 

 assertion, I would refer, among other instances, to 

 the description of the Sepia, and of the Chameleon, 

 and of the evolution of the egg of the bird during 

 incubation." 



It is remarkable, that, from the age of Aristotle 

 to nearly that of Linnaeus, no systematic classifica- 

 tion of animals was attempted none at least was ge- 



