CUVIER. 155 



Cuvier, however, went further than this. He showed, 

 by a close comparative examination of the fossil bones 

 of these Mammals with the bones of their nearest living 

 allies, with which they had previously been confounded, 

 that such differences existed between them as to render 

 it certain that the fossil forms belonged to l extinct' 

 species. The one grand point in which Cuvier's 

 views fell short of those of modern palaeontology, was 

 that he failed to recognise any direct connection, by 

 modification or descent, between the extinct species of 

 animals and those now alive. On the contrary, Cuvier, 

 like all the geologists of his time, was a ' catastrophist.' 

 In other words, he believed that the present period was 

 separated from preceding periods as these were supposed 

 to be separated from each other by sharp lines of demar- 

 cation, due to great ' catastrophes ' or natural convulsions, 

 by which the animals and plants of each period were 

 destroyed, a new series of organic forms coming into 

 existence at the commencement of each fresh period. 



On the question, also, of the nature and origin of 

 1 species,' Cuvier was entirely in agreement with most of 

 the naturalists of his day, being a firm believer in their 

 fixity and immutability. His great predecessor and con- 

 temporary, Lamarck, whose views will be more fully 

 discussed hereafter, had attacked this complex problem 

 from its zoological side ; and had arrived at the conclu- 

 sion that the existing species of animals and plants had 

 been produced by the modification of pre-existing species. 

 In this conclusion, however, Lamarck had run counter to 

 the most cherished beliefs of zoologists generally; and 

 the prejudices which he had to confront were not lessened 



