CHAPTER XV. 

 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 



It is only by collating numerous passages scattered 

 throughout his works that Aristotle's views on the classi- 

 fication of animals can be ascertained. These passages 

 show that he attempted to make a systematic classification, 

 but that, even for the animals known to him, it was in- 

 complete. Apart from this incompleteness, very different 

 views have been held respecting the value of his classifi- 

 cation. Ray, when treating of viviparous quadrupeds, 

 showed his appreciation of it by adopting part of Aristotle's 

 classification,* and both Cuvier and Owen, who believed 

 that Aristotle made a systematic classification, more or less 

 elaborate, spoke of it in highly appreciative terms. On the 

 other hand, Agassiz and Whewell, while fully recognizing 

 Aristotle's attempts to deal with the differences and re- 

 semblances of various animals, held that he did not propose 

 any regular classification. 



Aristotle certainly defined a few groups of animals, 

 particularly the Ketode and Loplioura, in such a way that 

 groups corresponding with them are to be found in modern 

 systems of classification, but, in most cases, what appear to 

 be his classificatory terms are not sufiiciently precise, while 

 their use often causes the same animals to fall into more 

 than one class, or brings into one class animals having no 

 close natural affinities. Examples of these defects are well 

 seen in the manner in which he deals with the dental 

 characters of animals. Not only carnivores, for instance, 

 but also reptiles and most fishes are included by him among 

 his Garcharodonta, or animals with sharp, interlocking teeth, 

 and the same animals, e.g., horses, are included both among 

 his Anepallahta, or animals with teeth having flat crowns, 

 and among his Ampliodonta, or animals with front teeth in 

 both jaws. 



* Syn. Meth. Anim. Quadr. et Serp. Gen., 1693, pp. 56 et seq. 



