8 THE MODERN STUDY OF ZOOLOGY 



This is clearly a classification by distribution, and 

 therefore differs totally from that of Aristotle, while 

 it agrees in principle with that of Solomon. This 

 agreement, however, is not only in principle ; if the 

 two schemes of classification be compared it will be 

 seen that they are really identical, a point of some 

 interest. Thus, Pliny's Animalia terrestria are the 

 same as the beasts of Solomon ; the Animalia 

 aquatilia as the fishes ; while Volucres are obviously 

 equivalent to fowl, and Animalia insecta to creeping 

 things. The sole difference between the two 

 systems is in the order in which the several groups 

 are arranged. It would, therefore, appear, that 

 while Aristotle was a long way in advance of any 

 of his predecessors, Pliny, who lived more than 

 400 years after Aristotle, not only made no 

 advance, but even fell back on the very empirical 

 classification that was in use in the days of 

 Solomon, iioo years previously, and that had 

 probably been in use for a still longer time. 



As Pliny is a writer who owed a considerable 

 part of his reputation to his work on natural 

 history, it may not be inappropriate here to quote 

 the criticism passed on him many centuries after 

 by Cuvier, in order to support my statement that 

 Pliny, instead of placing zoology on a more 

 scientific basis, in reality did it incalculable damage, 

 and threw it back as a science to the condition in 

 which it had been before Aristotle's time. Cuvier's 

 words are as follows :* " In general, he is only a 

 compiler, and, indeed, for the most part, a compiler 

 * " Biographic Universelle," xxxv. 



