108 
MEMOIR OF ARISTOTLE. 
has been adopted by almost if not all modern natu- 
ralists, if we except Lamarck. Cuvier, Aristotle’s 
great rival in this department, has not only followed 
it, but seems literally to have copied his descriptions 
in some natural groups and individual species of ani- 
mals, particularly the class of Mammalia. Professor 
Kidd of Oxford, in his Bridgewater Treatise on the 
“ Physical Condition of Man,” to which we are in- 
debted for some of the preceding remarks, has exhi- 
bited in parallel columns a comparison between the 
Grecian and the French philosopher in their phy- 
siological account of certain species ; and he con- 
cludes that, with respect to those points in the his- 
tory of animals equally accessible to both writers, 
the descriptions of the former are hardly inferior in 
accuracy to those of the latter. The examples ad- 
duced are those of man, ruminating animals, ceta- 
ceous animals, the elephant, the lion, the ape, the 
mole, the hedgehog, and the porcupine. “ Nor does 
this observation” (continues the learned Professor) 
“ hold with reference to the more common animals 
only: it is equally remarkable with reference to those 
which are of comparative rarity; in support of which 
assertion, l would refer, among other instances, to 
the description of the Sepia, and of the Chameleon, 
and of the evolution of the egg of the bird during 
incubation.” 
It is remarkable, that, from the age of Aristotle 
to nearly that of Linnmus, no systematic classifica- 
tion of animals was attempted — none at least was ge- 
