794 
motion; the internal organization of each indi- 
vidual part ; the processes of digestion, assimila- 
tion, nutrition, secretion, and reproduction; the 
wonderful instincts, the varied dispositions, and 
the different degrees of intellect, manifested in 
the animal creation, from the half-vegetable zoo- 
phyte up to man. MoM 
Although it cannot be doubted that the attention 
of men was early attracted to an observation of the 
habits and natures of the lower order of animals, 
Aristotle seems to have been the first who furnished 
the world with any methodical information on this 
subject. His work contains a great number of facts 
and observations. He compares the organization of 
the lower animals, in its different parts, with that of 
man, and treats of their mode of generation, habits, 
organs, &c., with great clearness and sagacity; and 
his principal divisions of the animal kingdom are so 
well founded that almost all of them are still sub- 
stantially admitted. Among the Romans, zoology 
does not appear to have been at all cultivated until 
the time of Pliny, who is the only Roman zoologist 
worthy of notice. His. work (Historia Naturalis) 
contains multitudes of original traits, though it is 
only a compilation, and describes the habits and dis- 
positions of animals with great felicity. He adopted, 
without examination, many fabulous stories, and too 
often neglected important details: lian was far 
inferior to the two above-mentioned writers, and his 
Natural History of Animals may be considered as 
the source of all the falsehood and error which so 
long disgraced this branch of natural history. © Apu- 
leius, and Atheneus the grammarian, are the only 
names that deserve mention, from the time of A®lian 
and Pliny to the beginning of the sixteenth century; 
and they added nothing to the stock of zoological 
science. At the latter period, flourished, among 
others, Belon, a French physician,, who made the 
closest approach of any author of that time to any- 
thing like systematic classification, in his De Aqua- 
tilibus, and particularly in his De ta Nature des Oi- 
seaux (Paris, 1555, folio); Salviani, author of a 
treatise, Aquatilium Animalium Historia (Rome, 
1554, folio), which is superbly illustrated; Conrad 
Gesner, whose Historia Animalium (Ziirich, 1550— 
1587, 4 vols. folio), arranged in alphabetical order, 
forms the foundation of modern zoology; and Aldo- 
vrandus, the most laborious of compilers, who de- 
voted sixty years to his work on natural history, in 
fourteen volumes, folio, of which the greater part 
was published after his death. ‘These earlier writers 
were followed, in the next century, by Redi and 
Swammerdam, to whom entomology is so much in- 
debted, and by Ray, the first naturalist, from the 
time of Aristotle, who produced anything like a sci- 
entific arrangement. The works of Ray, under his 
own name, are Synopsis Quadrupedum et Serpentum 
(1683, 8vo.); Synopsis Avium et Piscium (1718) ; 
and Historia Insectorum; and he is also considered 
to have had a large share in the compositions of his 
pupil Willoughby. But it was reserved for Lin- 
nzeus to raise natural history to the rank of a science. 
Gifted with extraordinary powers of invention and 
discrimination, a most retentive memory, an unre- 
laxing industry, and the most ardent zeal in the 
cause of science, this great man observed, with the 
acutest sagacity, the subtlest affinities of organized 
nature. ‘The general character of his works is order, 
precision, clearness, exactness of description, and an 
accurate knowledge of relations in detail. Buffon 
adorned natural history with the charms of elo- 
quence, and was the first who extended its popu- 
larity beyond mere scholars and men of science. He 
was occasionally carried, by the force of his imagi- 
nation, into unfounded hypotheses; yet’ he had a 
ZOOLOGY. 
truly philosophical spirit, could observe facts, and 
compare results, and possessed extensive informa- 
tion. The four great naturalists whom we have had 
occasion to mention, have exhibited nature under 
different aspects. Aristotle has shown us the pro- 
found combination of its laws; Pliny its inexhausti- 
ble riches; Linnzus its wonderful details; and Buf- 
fon its majesty and power. Since the time of Buf- 
fon, all the departments of zoology have been culti- 
vated with a zeal, a minute accuracy, and an exten- 
siveness of research, before unequalled. Our limits 
will not allow us to mention all those who have dis- 
tinguished themselves in the cultivation of the whole 
field of the science, much less those who, confining 
themselves to particular branches of it, have yet 
rendered most important services by the exactness 
of their researches and the novelty of their views. 
Among the Germans, Illiger and Blumenbach hold 
the first rank as zoologists; but it is to France that 
we are chiefly indebted for the strong impulse which 
has been given, in our times, to the progress of na- 
tural science, and of zoology in particular. The 
name of Cuvier alone sufficiently indicates the bril- 
liant triumphs of natural history in that country. 
We have already treated, at some length, of. 
some parts of this extensive subject, in the ar- 
ticles ANIMALS, GENERATION, Gestation, &c., and 
of the nomenclature of particular classes of ani- 
mals in the articles Insncrs, OnnrTHOLOGY, &e. ; 
and we shall now proceed to give some notice of 
the principal.methods of classification pursued 
by eminent zoologists, and shall make particu- 
lar mention of the classification of the mammi- 
ferous animals. The immense number of facts 
embraced by natural history could never be re- 
tained in the memory without an arrangement 
of divisions and subdivisions founded upon some 
distinguishing characteristics. Aristotle’s system 
of arrangement was simple, resting on divisions 
derived mainly from the external structure, food, 
habits, and locality. But though neither human 
nor comparative anatomy was then sufficiently 
cultivated to enable him to make the internal 
structure of animals the basis of his divisions, 
yet Aristotle was not insensible to the advan- 
tages of a more scientific distribution, and, with 
his usual sagacity, recommends to succeeding 
writers to turn their attention in that direction. 
Ray followed the advice of the great master, and 
remarked the great distinction, that some ani- 
mals possessed lungs and a sanguineous system, 
while others were destitute of both. Linnzus, 
proceeding on the general arrangement of Ray, 
but with many extensions and improvements, 
divided the animal kingdom into six classes, 
founded mainly on the differences in the respira- 
tory and sanguineous systems. 
Cuass.I.. Mammalia. All suckle their young; 
the heart has two auricles and two ventricles; blood 
red and warm; viviparous. 
‘Cxuass Il. Aves (Birds). Characters of sangui- 
neous system as in first class; viviparous. 
Crass III... Amphibia. Heart one auricle and 
one ventricle; blood red and cold; respiration volun- 
tary. \ 
Cia IV. Pisces (Fishes). Heart and blood as 
in amphibia ; respiration by gills. 
Cuass V. Insecta. Heart one ventricle and no 
auricle; sanies cold, colourless; antenne, or feelers. 
| ———————— = a on au 
