t he at
times surpassed Cuvier. His was the master mind of the period of
systematic zooelogy, which began with Linne--the period which, in the
history of zooelogy, preceded that of comparative anatomy and morphology.

After Aristotle, no epoch-making zooelogist arose until Linne was born.
In England Linne was preceded by Ray, but binomial nomenclature and the
first genuine attempt at the classification of animals dates back to the
_Systema Naturae_ of Linne, the tenth edition of which appeared in 1758.

[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF LAMARCK]

The contemporaries of Lamarck in biological science, in the eighteenth
century, were Camper (1722-89), Spallanzani (1729-99), Wolff (1733-94),
Hunter (1728-93), Bichat (1771-1802), and Vicq d'Azyr (1748-94). These
were all anatomists and physiologists, the last-named being the first
to propose and use the term "comparative anatomy," while Bichat was the
founder of histology and pathological anatomy. There was in fact no
prominent systematic zooelogist in the interval between Linne and
Lamarck. In France there were only two zooelogists of prominence when
Lamarck assumed his duties at the Museum. These were Bruguiere the
conchologist and Olivier the entomologist. In Germany Hermann was the
leading systematic zooelogist. We would not forget the labors of the
great German anatomist and physiologist Blumenbach, who was also the
founder of anthropology; nor the German anatomists Tiedemann, Bojanus,
and Carus; nor the embryologist Doellinger. But Lamarck's method and
point of view were of a new order--he was much more than a mere
systematist. His work in systematic zooelogy, unlike that of Linne, and
especially of Cuvier, was that of a far higher grade. Lamarck, besides
his rigid, analytical, thorough, and comprehensive work on the
invertebrates, whereby he evolved order and system out of the chaotic
mass of forms comprised in the Insects and Vermes of Linne, was animated
with conceptions and theories to which his forerunners and
contemporaries, Geoffroy St. Hilaire excepted, were entire strangers.
His tabular view of the classes of the animal kingdom was to his mind a
genealogical tree; his idea of the animal kingdom anticipated and was
akin to that of our day. He compares the animal series to a tree with
its numerous branches, rather than to a single chain of being. This
series, as he expressly states, began with the monad and ended with
man; it began with the simple and ended with the c