August 15, 1878] 



NATURE 



419 



materially to bridge over the gap which at first sight appears to 

 exist between reptiles and birds, but which to many palaeontolo- 

 gists was far from being impassable, lon^ before the discoveries 

 just mentioned. The amphicoelous character of the vertebrae of 

 Ichthyornis presents another most remarkable peculiarity, which 

 is also of high significance. I hear rumours of the discovery of 

 another ArchcEOpteryx in the Solenhofen Slates, which is said to 

 present the head in a much more complete condition than that 

 in which it occurs on the magnificent slab now in the British 

 Museum. As yet, I believe, the jaws have not had the matrix 

 removed from them ; but should they prove to be armed with 

 teeth, it will to me be a cause of satisfaction rather than sur- 

 prise, as confirming an opinion which some fifteen years ago ^ I 

 ventured to express, that this remarkable creature may have 

 been endowed with teeth, either in lieu of or combined with a 

 beak. 



I must not, however, detain you longer with any of these 

 general remarks, which are, moreover, becoming somewhat 

 egotistic, but will now proceed to the business of this section, 

 in which I hope that more than one paper of gi'eat value and 

 interest will be forthcominsf. 



SECTION D. 



BIOLOGY. 



Opening Address in the Department of Zoology and 

 Botany, by Prof. W. H. Flower, F.R.S., Presi- 

 dent of the Section. 



On the loth of January, 1778, died the great Swedish Natur- 

 alist, Charles Linne, more commonly known as Linnaeus, a 

 name which will ever be mentioned with respect and regard in 

 an assembly devoted to the cultivation of the sciences of Zoology 

 and Botany, as whatever may be the future progress of those 

 sciences, the numerous writings of Linnajus, and especially the 

 publication of the " Systema Naturae," can never cease to be 

 looked upon as marking an era in their development. That 

 work contained a systematic exposition of all that was known on 

 these subjects expressed in language the most terse and precise. 

 The accumulated knowledge of all the workers at zoology, 

 botany, and mineralogy since the world began, was here col- 

 lected together by patient industry, and welded into a complete 

 and harmonious whole by penetrating genius. 



Exactly a century has passed since Linnaeus died. What of 

 the progress of the subjects to which he devoted his long and 

 laborious life? This one century is a brief space compared with 

 the ages which have passed since man began to dwell upon the 

 earth, surrounded by living objects, which have, more and more 

 as time rolled on, awakened his curiosity, stimulated his facul- 

 ties to observe, and impelled him to record the knowledge so 

 gained for the benefit of those to come. How does it stand in 

 comparison with those which preceded it, in the contributions it 

 has thus acquired and recorded ? 



It may be not without interest in commencing our work at 

 this meeting to cast our eyes back and take stock, as it were, of 

 the knowledge of a hundred years ago, and of that of the present 

 time, and see what advances have been made ; to look at the 

 living world as it was known to Linnaeus and as it is known to 

 ourselves. The " Systema Naturae," the last edition of which, 

 revised by the author, was published in 1 766, will be a con- 

 venient basis for the comparison, but as the subject is one which, 

 even in a most superficial outline, might reach such lengths as 

 would well tire out the most patient of audiences, and absorb 

 time which will be more profitably occupied by the valuable 

 contributions which are forthcoming from other members of the 

 Association, I will merely take a small section of the work, 

 about 100 pages out of the first of the four volumes, those de- 

 voted to the first class Mammalia. The comparison of this 

 part is perhaps the easiest, as the contrast is the least striking, 

 and the progress has been comparatively the slowest. The 

 knowledge of large, accessible, and attractive-looking animals 

 had naturally preceded that of minute and obscure organisms, 

 and hence, while in many other departments the advance has 

 altogether revolutionized the knowledge of Linnasus, in the 

 vertebrated classes, especially the one of which I shall now 

 fpeak, it has only extended and reformed it. 



In taking the " Systema Naturae " of Linnaeus, the comparison 

 is certainly carried back somewhat beyond the hundred years 

 vhich have elapsed since his death, and the brilliant contribu- 

 * Nat. Hist. Rev., vol. v. p. 421. 



tions to the knowledge of the Mammalia of Bufifon and Dau- 

 benton just then beginning to be known, and the systematic 

 compilation of Erxleben (published in 1777), are ignored, but 

 for the present purpose, especially considering the limited time 

 at my disposal, it w ill be best not to go beyond the actual text 

 of the work in question. 



Before considering systematically the different groups into 

 which Linnaeus divides the class, I must remark in passing upon 

 what is the greatest, and indeed most marvellous difference be- 

 tween the knowledge of zoology of our time and that of Lin- 

 nreus. Now we know that the animals at present existing upon 

 the earth are merely the survivors of an immensity of others, 

 different in form, characters, and mode of life, which have 

 peopled the earth through vast ages of time, and to which 

 numerically our existing forms are infinitesimally small, and that 

 the knowledge we possess of an immense number of them, fully 

 justifies the expectation of an enormous further advance in this 

 direction. In the time of Linnaeus the existence in any past 

 time of a species having no longer living representatives on the 

 earth, though perhaps the speculation of a few philosophical 

 minds, had not been received among the certainties of science, 

 and at all events found no place in the great work we are now 

 considering. 



In the twelfth edition of the " Systema Naturae " we find the 

 class Mammalia divided into seven orders : I. Primates, II. 

 Bruta, III. Fera:, IV. Glires, V. Pecora, VI. Bellutr, VII. Cete. 

 These orders contain forty genera without any intermediate sub- 

 divisions. The genera are again divided into species, of which 

 the total number is 220. 



The first order, Primates, contains four genera : Homo, Simia, 

 Lemur, and Vespertilio. 



The vexed question of man's place in the zoological system 

 was thus settled by Linnaeus. He belongs to the class Mam- 

 malia, and the order Primates, the same order which includes 

 all known monkeys, lemurs, and bats : he differs only generi- 

 cally from these animals. But then we must remember that the 

 Linnaean genera were not our genera, they correspond usually to 

 what we call families, sometimes to entire orders. So that 

 practically man's position is much the same as that to which, after 

 several vicissitudes, as his separation as an order by Blumenbach 

 and Cuvier, or as a subclass by Owen, he has returned in the 

 systems of nearly all the zoologists of the present day who treat 

 of him as a subject for classification upon zoological and not 

 metaphysical grounds. 



Yet since the time of Linnaeus the whole science of anthro- 

 pology has been created. There is certainly an attempt at the 

 division of the species Homo sapiens into six varieties in the 

 "Systema Naturae," but it has scarcely any scientific basis. 

 Zoological anthropology may be said to have commenced with 

 Blumenbach, who, it is interesting to recaU as an evidence of 

 the rapid growth of the science, was a contemporary with 

 most of us in this room, for he died as lately as 1840, although 

 his first work on the subject, "De generis humani varietate 

 nativa," was published three years before the death of Linn^us, 

 too late, however, to influence the work we are now chiefly 

 speaking of. The scientific study of the natural history of man 

 is therefore, we may say, but one century old. To what it has 

 grown during that time you are probably aware. Scarcely an 

 important centre of civilisation in the world but has a special 

 society devoted to its cultivation. It forms by itself a spedal 

 department of the Biological Section of our Association, a 

 department of such importance, that on this occasion no less 

 distinguished a person Uian a former most eminent president of 

 the whole Association was thought fit to take charge of it. From 

 him you will doubtless hear what is its present scope, aim, and 

 compass. I need only remind you that except the one cardinal 

 point of the zoological relation of man to other forms of life, 

 which Linnaeus appears to have appreciated with intuitive per- 

 ception, all else that you will now hear in that department was 

 not dreamt of in his philosophy. 



As might naturally be supposed, apes and monkeys have, for 

 various reasons, attracted the attention of observers of nature 

 from very early times, and consequently Linnaeus was able to 

 give rather a goodly list of species of these animals, amounting 

 to thirty-three, but of their mutual affinities, and of the import- 

 ant structural differences which exist between many of them, 

 he seems to have had no idea, his three divisions being simply 

 regulated by the condition of the tail, whether absent, short, or 



long. 



We now know that the so-called anthropoid or man-hke apes. 



