Mat 12, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



733 



ciated the angler with the rays precludes the 

 idea that the error originated with an editor 

 or copyist. Many other cases of misplace- 

 ment of animals, on account of superficial 

 similarity, which differ fundamentally, might 

 be cited did our limits permit. It need only 

 be repeated that Aristotle was not " the 

 founder of systematic zoology " and had little 

 or no appreciation of what is now so termed. 



The " History of Animals," indeed, is by 

 no means a treatise on systematic zoology, but 

 rather a work on physiology. It generally 

 includes nine "books," but a tenth was for- 

 merly recognized which is now universally 

 regarded as spurious. In general terms, in 

 the first three the parts and regions of 

 " blooded " or vertebrate animals are consid- 

 ered ; in the fourth the " bloodless " or inver- 

 tebrate animals and the senses generally are 

 noticed; in the fifth and sixth generation 

 and breeding habits are described and, in the 

 seventh, especially those of man; the eighth 

 and ninth books treat " of the psychology of 

 animals," including the feeding and general 

 habits. These categories are by no means 

 exact, however, and various miscellaneous in- 

 formation is interjected. No data are given 

 for the determination of the animals consid- 

 ered except what may be found in scattered 

 places respecting certain characteristics, and 

 many species are only noticed once. It is 

 assumed that the reader will know the animals 

 by the vernacular names of the time. 



There is nothing like a system of the animal 

 kingdom and the groups are only such as were 

 and still are recognized by people without 

 special knowledge of natural history. The 

 only categories of classification are the genos 

 (genus) and the eidos which correspond almost 

 exactly with kind and species or variety of Eng- 

 lish and are equally vague and to some extent 

 interchangeable. Indeed, as Thompson notes 

 (490''), Aristotle sometimes " seems to juggle 

 with the terms ItSos and yei/os." The only 

 group designations are those in general use, 

 agreeing with English popular appellatives. 

 Aristotle especially names the most compre- 

 hensive " genera " or kinds of " blooded " 

 animals in book I. (Thompson 490" 9 and 10) 



and of " bloodless " animals in book IV. (523" 

 4^13) ; the former are Ornithes (birds), Ich- 

 thyes (fishes) and Ketoi (whalekind) ; the 

 latter are Malakia (cuttlefishes), Malakostraca 

 (soft-shelled shellfishes), Ostrakoderma (true 

 shellfishes) and Entoma (insects). Thus each 

 of the Aristotelian " great genera " has re- 

 ceived popular recognition among the English 

 as well as other peoples. Aristotle, it is true, 

 says (Thompson, I., 490" 9-11) : " There is 

 another genus of the hard-shell kind, which is 

 called oyster; another of the soft-shell kind, 

 not as yet designated by a single term," which 

 he later (IV., 523" 5) designated as malakos- 

 traka; it does not necessarily follow, however, 

 that Aristotle coined the word for the group; 

 he doubtless took an already existent adjective 

 and used it as a substantive. A few minor 

 kinds or combinations are recognized, as ceta- 

 ceans (ketoi), selachians (selachia), horse 

 kind (lophuri) and cuttlefishes (malakia), but 

 otherwise the animals " are only named as it 

 were one by one, as we say man, lion, stag, 

 horse, dog, and so on" (I., 490" 34). 



About five centuries later Apuleius, in his 

 singular " Apologia " or " Defence," gave a 

 list of collective designations or aggregates 

 of animals, and Aristotle's group names con- 

 stituted practically all the natural groups or 

 classes of the fourteen recorded. (Works of 

 Apuleius, Bohn ed., p. 286.) Many centuries 

 were destined to roll away before the list was 

 added to. Indeed, not until the eighteenth 

 century did any naturalist give name to a class 

 independent of popular recognition. Linnffius 

 was the real founder of systematic zoology. 

 It is true that he was to some extent antici- 

 pated by Ray in the previous century, but Ray 

 did not give nomenclatural expression to his 

 logical concepts. 



Inasmuch, then, as the genos and eidos are 

 the only categories which have received dis- 

 tinctive names, they only should be recog- 

 nized. Professor Thompson has done this, 

 but he has used the word " genus " in the 

 same vague manner as Aristotle. That desig- 

 nation, however, has been restricted by mod- 

 ern naturalists to a group of closely related 

 species and often to a single species when that 



