FROM LAMARCK TO ST. HILAIRE 265 



spectively by Linnseus and Buffon. Cuvier re- 

 plied by a criticism of the position of St. Hilaire 

 as to this 'unity of plan,' and rightly sought 

 to demonstrate that there were several distinct 

 plans of animal organization. He carefully ana- 

 lyzed the arguments brought forward, and 

 showed conclusively that in the types cited by St. 

 Hilaire the organs in their position gave evi- 

 dence simply of analogy and of resemblance, not 

 of a real unity of plan; that these molluscs led 

 to no other types. Further, he said that St. 

 Hilaire's method contained nothing new and that 

 it reverted simply to the views of Aristotle. 



In following the details of this controversy, we 

 see that Cuvier was entirely correct in his ana- 

 tomical facts, and more or less wrong in his prin- 

 ciples; while St. Hilaire was wrong in his facts, 

 and right in the principle wliich he advocated. 

 The effect was to drive Cuvier, who issued from 

 this famous discussion with the greater eclat, 

 into the extreme position of recommending nat- 

 uralists to confine themselves solely to the expo- 

 sition of positive facts without attempting to 

 draw from them philosophical inductions. This 

 sharp issue, therefore, exerted a retarding in- 

 fluence upon the progress of inquiry into Evo- 

 lution; for Cuvier, in his brilliant lectures in 

 the College de France, threw increased weight 

 against the method and teachings of St. Hilaire, 



