rm-: n/c tiu:i-: axd its sroin 



19 



grandlatlicr of Charles Daiwiii, was 

 anotluM" of the cai'lx' cxolut ioiiists. 

 Ho pointed out. ainonu; other thin<2;s, 

 tliat tlie universal struii'^ie for exist- 

 enco involvcHJ i)lants as well as ani- 

 mals. Unlike l^uifon, he (Mnphasi/ed 

 the indir(H't or res])()nsive modifica- 

 tions produced hv the environment, 

 thus anticii)atin<2; Lamarck, hut lik(^ 

 his predecessor, he assununl the in- 

 heritance of such chani>;es. 



It was Lamarck (1744-1829), the 

 contemporary and fellow-count r^-man 

 of Cuvier, who was the first to express 

 the blood-relationship of organisms, 

 as is done to-day,, namely, by means of 

 the genealogical tree. This eminent 

 anatomist and investigator held views 

 much in advance of his time. He 

 rejected entirely the fixity of species, 

 and believed that all animals now- 

 existing had been derived from a 

 connnon stock by a process of gradual 

 change. In one place he affirms that 

 ''Xature needs only matter, time and 

 space to produce all changes." The 

 two factors which he believed most 

 important in producing these modifi- 

 cations were the reaction of the 

 organisms to their environment and 

 the inheritance of the modifications 

 resulting from this reaction and of 

 the effects of use and disuse of organs. 



Lamarck's theory was partially 

 smothered in the ridicule which Cuvier 

 heaped upon it. Cuvier w^as a firm 

 believer in the immutability of species 

 and his great authoritj^ in the bio- 

 logical field made him a powerful 

 dictator of public opinion. 



Among the naturaUsts of the eigh- 

 teenth century, Goethe and Cuvier 

 are conspicuous. The former i^n^G), 

 although a great poet, made valuable 

 contributions to science. He intro- 



duced the word ' 'inorpholojiy '' as a 

 desi,t2;nation for the study of form 

 or stiucture, and was the hrst to ad- 

 vance the rciiehnil thconj of the skull, 

 that is, that the skull represents 

 modified vertebra'. lie recognized the 

 significance of vestigial organs, such 

 as the gill slits in human embryos, 

 hinder apjXMidages in whales, etc., 

 and predicted the discovery of the 

 premaxilla in man — the supposed ab- 

 sence of which was consideied to be 

 a character w-hlch distinguished man 

 from the apes. 



It was, however, Georges Cuvier 

 (born in 1769), the famous French 

 naturalist, who was the recognized 

 leader in zoological science for more 

 than half a century. He stands as a 

 striking example of a man who was 

 remarkably correct in his observa- 

 tions of nature, but equally incorrect 

 in his generalizations. His work 

 on the Tertiary mammals of France 

 marked the beginning of palaeontology. 

 He was the first to point out the re- 

 semblance between "Anchitherium'' 

 and the modern horse, a fact wiiich 

 is one of the strongest evidences of 

 evolution. He w^as a pre format ion- 

 ist and beheved in Catastrophism (the 

 theory that the earth as it is at present 

 is the result of successive catas- 

 trophes), rather than Uniformitarian- 

 ism (the belief that the present con- 

 dition of the earth has been l)rought 

 about by a gradual, uniform change). 

 The work of Cuvier in comparative 

 anatomy is also important, and he is 

 called the founder of this science. 

 He recognized the principle of corre- 

 lated growth, and in "Le Regne 

 Animal" improved the classification 

 of animals. 



The last century of our tree's hfe 



