490 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 668 



guide of Linne in the department of na- 

 ture. "^ He, indeed, made a pathway in 

 the zoological field which Linne was glad 

 to follow, and to some extent he anticipated 

 the brightest thoughts of the great Swede. 

 He, for example, in a dichotomous system- 

 atic table of the animal kingdom,^ first 

 combined the lunged fish-like aquatic and 

 viviparous animals in a special category 

 (Vivipara) in contrast with all the other 

 vertebrates, leaving to Linne only the 

 privilege of giving a name to the class. 

 He recognized a group of lung-bearing 

 animals distinguished by a heart with a 

 single ventricle, including quadrupeds and 

 serpents, and thus appreciated better than 

 Linne the class which the latter named 

 Amphibia. He likewise gave the anatom- 

 ical characters, based on the heart, blood 

 and lungs, which Linne used for his classes. 



THE BEGINNINGS OP SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY 



Systematic zoology is a vast subject, and 

 any address devoted to it must necessarily 

 be very partial. It need only be partial 

 for such an assemblage of masters in zool- 

 ogy as I have the great honor to address, 

 and I shall confine the present discourse to 

 a review of some of the elements which 

 have made systematic zoology what it now 

 is. I will venture, too, to submit reasons 

 why we may have to take a somewhat dif- 

 ferent view of the achievements of some 

 men than did our early predecessors. If 

 in doing so I may appear to be dogmatic, 

 I entreat you in advance to insert all the 

 ^'ifs" and "I thinks" and "perhaps" that 

 you may deem to be necessary. For the 

 present purpose, the work of two who ex- 

 ercised, each for a considerable time, a 

 paramount influence on opinion and pro- 

 cedure, deserves notice, especially because 



' Lankester, Edwin, " The Correspondence of 

 John Ray," 1848, p. 485. 



' " Synopsis Methodica Animalium Quadruped- 

 um et Serpentini Generis," 1693, p. 53. 



there has been much misapprehension re- 

 specting their benefits to natural science. 

 The two were Carl Linne and Georges 

 Cuvier; the one exercised dictatorship 

 from the middle of the eighteenth century 

 till some time after its close ; the other was 

 almost equally dominant from the first 

 quarter of the last century to well into the 

 third quarter. No other men approached 

 either of these two in influence on the work 

 of contemporaries or successors. The evil 

 features, as well as the good, were trans- 

 mitted to and adopted by later authors. 

 Therefore, a notice of those features may 

 help us to a correct judgment of the his- 

 tory of our subject, and may help to show 

 why the disciples of the great Swede, as 

 well as the great Frenchman, complicated 

 many problems they investigated. Suffi- 

 cient time has elapsed to enable us to judge 

 knowingly and impartially. 



CARL LINNlfi 



Linne needs no eulogy this year, for his 

 praises have resounded over the whole 

 world. Born just two centuries ago 

 (1707), he published the first edition of 

 the "Systema Naturae" in 1735, and his 

 last (twelfth) in 1766. The various edi- 

 tions mark to some extent the steps of 

 man's progress in the knowledge of nature 

 during the time limited by the respective 

 dates. 



Linne 's industry was great, his sym- 

 pathies wide-spread, and his method in 

 large part good. Compare the "Systema 

 Naturte" and other publications of Linne 

 with works published by earlier authors, 

 and the reason for the active appreciation 

 and esteem which greeted his work will be 

 obvious. The typographical dress and the 

 clearness of expression left no doubt as to 

 what the author meant, and enabled the 

 student to readily grasp his intentions. 

 His boldness in giving expression to new 

 ideas insured success when they deserved 



