BUFFON 371 



phrases, was Reaumur. Nowhere does Buflfbn expose 

 his own weakness more irremediably than in carefully 

 studied passages which were meant to wound. 



His first sentences set forth the difficulty of dealing 

 with the infinite variety of natural objects. " On doit 

 done commencer par voir beaucoup et revoir souvent." 

 The chain of nature, descending by imperceptible 

 gradations from man to the simplest mineral, has of 

 course to be mentioned ; it was thought in 1749 to 

 be an obvious fact. Then he opens his attack on the 

 systematists. 



He has no suspicion that natural groups of animals 

 and plants may exist, groups so plainly marked that 

 complete unanimity respecting them is attainable. Ray 

 and Linnaeus had already founded groups which are still 

 recognised ; both had dimly perceived the relation which 

 we call affinity, and had sought to give effect to it. 

 But to Buffbn the only ground for preferring one group- 

 ing to another is convenience. All groups are mere 

 abstractions ; " il n'existe r^ellement dans la Nature 

 que les individus ; les genres, les ordres, et les classes 

 n'existent que dans notre imagination." ^ In some philo- 

 sophical sense this may be true, but for the zoologist to 

 treat mammals and birds as imaginary groups is much 

 as if the politician were to treat Englishmen and French- 

 men as imaginary groups. To Buffbn the arrangement 

 of animals and plants was a problem of the same kind 

 as the arrangement of the books in a library. All groups 

 are as arbitrary as the alphabet, and he prefers that 

 arrangement, whatever it is, which is most serviceable 

 to a popular writer. The search for a perfect system is, 

 he says, as chimerical as the search for the philosopher's 



' Ray had said the same thing long before ; it had been a maxim of 

 certain schools of philosophy. 



