THE HISTORY OF ZOOLOGY 505 



seems to be little ground for believing that Lamarck knew of 

 Darwin's work. 



The German poet, Goethe (1749-1832), though living at the 

 same time as Lamarck, does not appear to have known of the 

 " Philosophic Zoologique." He was a keen naturalist and a 

 firm believer in evolution. He introduced the term Morpholo& 

 and suggested various theories, some of which have proved 

 correct and others not. 



One of the greatest comparative anatomists of the nineteenth 

 century was Cuvier (1 769-1 832), who was also the first to estab- 

 lish palaeontology on a scientific basis. He was horn in Ger- 

 many, but when about twenty-five removed to Paris. His chief 

 works were " Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organiza- 

 tion" and "Lemons d'anatomie comparee." His knowledge of 

 animal structure far exceeded that of his contemporaries, and 

 he viewed the facts of comparative anatomy from a much 

 broader standpoint than any naturalist had clone up to that 

 time. In this way he was able to take in the totality of struc- 

 ture and thus saw the broader relationships of animals which 

 had escaped his predecessors. Hence, instead of taking the 

 six classes of Linnaeus as the primary divisions of the animal 

 kingdom," he distinguished four large groups which he called 

 branches ; these correspond to our types, the name type being 

 first introduced by the French writer, de Blainville (1777-1850). 

 The four branches of Cuvier were : — 



Branch 



1 . Yertebrata. 



II. Mollusca (including also the Tunicata, Brachiopoda and Cirripedia). 

 III. Articulata (comprising the Arthropoda and the Annelida). 

 I\". Radiata (consisting of the round and the flat worms, the Kchinoder- 

 mata. the Coelenterata. and the Protozoa). 



This was by far the greatest advance that had been made in 

 the classification of animals since the days of Linnaeus ; but he 

 considered each branch as complete in itself and independent oi 

 the others. He became the opponent of evolution, holding to 

 the immutability not only of species but of varieties, and most 

 pitilessly opposed Lamarck in all his doctrines. His wide repu- 

 tation as an anatomist and palaeontologist gave him an enor- 

 mous influence and great prestige, and it was without doubt due 



