h secured universal admiration.

Charles X., of France, and the King of Wurtemberg, vied with each other
in the honors they conferred on Cuvier; and on the accession of Louis
Philippe to the French throne the new sovereign continued the favors
shown by his predecessors, and in 1832 made the baron a French peer. But
his end was now drawing nigh. "Gentlemen," he said one day to his
hearers, in opening a new course of lectures, "these will be the objects
of our future investigations, if time, health, and strength shall be
given to me to continue and finish them with you." But an overwrought
brain the very next day produced paralysis, and the distinguished
statesman and philosopher died at the age of sixty-three, on May 13,
1832.

Down to the time of Cuvier, the classification of animal life had been
most imperfect and unsatisfactory. The basis adopted by Ray was open to
criticism. Comparative anatomy, rising into importance during the
eighteenth century, continued through that period in a state of infancy.
Linnaeus and Buffon rendered valuable service; but all former students in
this branch of science were surpassed by Cuvier. A curious anecdote is
recorded of the ignorance of natural objects which continued even after
the opening of the present century. When the committee of the French
Academy were employed in preparing the well-known Academy dictionary,
Cuvier came one day into the room where they were holding a session.
"Glad to see you, M. Cuvier," said one of the forty; "we have just
finished a definition which we think quite satisfactory, but on which we
should like to have your opinion. We have been defining the word 'crab,'
and explained it thus: 'Crab, a small red fish, which walks backward.'"
"Perfect, gentlemen," said Cuvier; "only, if you will give me leave, I
will make one small observation in natural history. The crab is not a
fish, it is not red, and it does not walk backward. With these
exceptions your definition is excellent."

Cuvier was the first to give a really philosophical view of the animal
world in reference to the plan on which each animal is constructed.
There are, he says, four such plans--four forms on which animals appear
to have been modelled, and of which the ulterior divisions, with
whatever titles naturalists have decorated them, are only very slight
modifications, founded on the development or addition of some parts
which do not produce any essential change in the plan. These four great