umber of
the known invertebrata that it was found necessary to endow two
professors, where one had originally been sufficient.

"His two daughters were left penniless. In the year 1832 I myself saw
Mlle. Cornelie de Lamarck earning a scanty pittance by fastening dried
plants on to paper, in the museum of which her father had been a
professor. Many a species named and described by him must have passed
under her eyes and increased the bitterness of her regret."[185]

FOOTNOTES:

[184] Paris, 1873.

[185] Introduction Biographique to M. Martins' edition of the 'Phil.
Zool.,' pp. ix-xx.

CHAPTER XVI.

GENERAL MISCONCEPTION CONCERNING LAMARCK--HIS PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.

"If Cuvier," says M. Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire,[186] "is the modern
successor of Linnaeus, so is Lamarck of Buffon. But Cuvier does not go so
far as Linnaeus, and Lamarck goes much farther than Buffon. Lamarck,
moreover, took his own line, and his conjectures are not only much
bolder, or rather more hazardous, but they are profoundly different from
Buffon's.

"It is well known that the vast labours of Lamarck were divided between
botany and physical science in the eighteenth century, and between
zoology and natural philosophy in the nineteenth; it is, however, less
generally known that Lamarck was long a partisan of the immutability of
species. It was not till 1801, when he was already old, that he freed
himself from the ideas then generally prevailing. But Lamarck, having
once made up his mind, never changed it; in his ripe age he exhibits all
the ardour of youth in propagating and defending his new convictions.

"In the three years, 1801, 1802, 1803, he enounced them twice in his
lectures, and three times in his writings.[187] He returns to the
subject and states his views precisely in 1806,[188] and in 1809 he
devotes a great part of his principal work, the 'Philosophie
Zoologique,' to their demonstration.[189] Here he might have rested and
have quietly awaited the judgment of his peers; but he is too much
convinced; he believes the future of science to depend so much upon his
doctrine that to his dying day he feels compelled to explain it further
and insist upon it. When already over seventy years of age he enounces
it again, and maintains it as firmly as ever in 1815, in his 'Histoire
des Animaux sans Vertebres,' and in 1820 in his 'Systeme des
Connaissances Positives.'[190]

"This doctrine, so dearly cherished by its author, an