LINNZZUS AND NATURAL HISTORY I3t 
that animals exhibit four types of organization, and his types 
were substituted for the primary groups of Linneus. 
The Scale of Being.—In order to understand the bearing 
of Cuvier’s conclusions we must take note of certain views 
regarding the animal kingdom that were generally accepted 
at the time of his writing. Between Linnzeus and Cuvier 
there had emerged the idea that all animals, from the lowest 
to the highest, form a graduated series. This grouping of 
animals into a linear arrangement was called exposing the 
Scale of Being, or the Scale of Nature (Scala Nature). 
Buffon, Lamarck, and Bonnet were among the chief ex- 
ponents of this idea. 
That Lamarck’s connection with it was temporary has 
been generally overlooked. It is the usual statement in the 
histories of natural science, as inthe Encyclopedia Britannica, 
in the History of Carus,and in Thomson’s Science of Life, 
that the idea of the scale of nature found its fullest expression 
in Lamarck. Thomson says: “ His classification (1801-1812) 
represents the climax of the attempt to arrange the groups 
of animals in linear order from lower to higher, in what was 
called a scala nature” (p. 14). Even so careful a writer as 
Richard Hertwig has expressed the matter in a similar form. 
Now, while Lamarck at first adopted a linear classification, 
it is only‘a partial reading of his works that will support the 
conclusion that he held to it. In his Systéme des Aniniaux 
sans Vertébres, published in 1801, he arranged animals in 
this way; but to do credit to his discernment, it should be 
observed that he was the first to employ a genealogical tree 
and to break up the serial arrangement of animal forms. In 
1809, in the second volume of his Philosophie Zoologique, 
as Packard has pointed out, he arranged animals according 
to their relationships, in the form of a trunk with divergent 
branches. This was no vague suggestion on his part, but 
an actual pictorial representation of the relationship between 
