October 18, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



497 



Saurians. On the other hand, as early as 

 1816 Blainville had given subclass rank to 

 the naked amphibians with four orders, 

 and also ordinal rank to the croeodilians, 

 and a little later (1822) he raised the sub- 

 classes to class rank. Still more, Blain- 

 ville early (1816) recognized that the so- 

 called naked serpents were true amphib- 

 ians and gave satisfactory reasons for his 

 assumption, though to the last Cuvier 

 (1829) considered them to be merely a 

 family of the ophidians. As Blainville 

 claimed, he based his classification on an- 

 atomical facts. ^"^ 



A pupil of Blainville, Ferdinand L'Her- 

 minier of the island of Gaudeloupe, at 

 the instance and following the lead of his 

 master (1827), undertook the comparative 

 study of the sternal apparatus of birds and 

 thereby discovered a key to the natural 

 relationship of many types which antici- 

 pated by many years the views now cur- 

 rent. For instance, L'Herminier first cor- 

 rectly appreciated the differences of the 

 ostriches and penguins from other birds, 

 the difference between the passerines and 

 swifts, the homogeneity of the former, and 

 the affinity of the humming birds and the 

 swifts. Meanwhile Cuvier, like Linne, was 

 content to accept as the basis for his 

 primary classification of birds, superficial 

 modifications of the bill and feet (toes and 

 nails) which led to many unnatural asso- 

 ciations as well as separations, but which 

 nevertheless have been persisted in even to 

 our own day by many ornithologists. 



Now what could have been the under- 

 lying idea which hindered the foremost 

 comparative anatomist of his age from the 

 recognition of what are now considered to 

 be elementary truths and what enabled 

 Blainville to forge so far ahead? Cuvier 



'° " Ses bases sont anatomiques et surtout tirtes 

 de la consideration du crane," Bull. 8c. 8oc. 

 Philom., 1816, p. 111. 



manifestly allowed himself to be influenced 

 by the sentiment prevalent in his time, 

 that systematic zoology and comparative 

 anatomy were different provinces. It 

 may, indeed, seem strange to make the 

 charge against the preeminent anatomist, 

 that he failed because he neglected anat- 

 omy, but it must become evident to all 

 who carefully analyze his zoological works 

 that such neglect was his prime fault. He, 

 in fact, treated zoology and anatomy as 

 distinct disciplines, or, in other words, he 

 acted on the principle that animals should 

 be considered independently from two 

 points of view, the superficial, or those 

 facts easily observed, and the deep-seated, 

 or anatomical characters. Blainville, on 

 the contrary, almost from the first, con- 

 sidered animals in their entirety and would 

 estimate their relations by a view of the 

 entire organization. Yet the sentiment 

 then prevalent was reflected by one who 

 enjoyed a high reputation for a time 

 as a "philosophical zoologist" — William 

 Swainson. In "A Treatise on the Geog- 

 raphy and Classification of Animals" 

 (1836, p. 173), the author complained 

 that "Cuvier rested his distinctions . . . 

 upon characters which, however good, are 

 not always comprehensible, except to the 

 anatomist. The utility of his system, for 

 general use, is consequently much di- 

 minished, and it gives the student an im- 

 pression (certainly an erroneous one) that 

 the internal, and not the external, struc- 

 ture of an animal alone decides its place 

 in nature." It was long before such a 

 mischievous opinion was discarded. 



Cuvier was regarded almost universally 

 by his contemporaries, and long after- 

 wards, in the words of his intellectual suc- 

 cessor, Louis Agassiz, as "the greatest 

 zoologist of all time."^" In view of the 

 facts already cited and innumerable others 



"Agassiz, "Essay on Classification," p. 286. 



