FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33  
34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   >>   >|  
sions of the animal kingdom are based, but simply upon the general structural idea. Striking as this statement was, it was coldly received at first by contemporary naturalists: they could hardly grasp Cuvier's wide generalizations, and perhaps there was also some jealousy of the grandeur of his views. Whatever the cause, his principle of classification was not fully appreciated; but it opened a new road for study, and gave us the keynote to the natural affinities among animals. Lamarck, his contemporary, not recognizing the truth of this principle, distributed the animal kingdom into two great divisions, which he calls _Vertebrates_ and _Invertebrates_. Ehrenberg also, at a later period, announced another division under two heads,--those with a continuous solid nervous centre, and those with merely scattered nervous swellings.[3] [3] For more details upon the different systems of Zooelogy, see Agassiz's Essay on Classification in his _Contributions to the Natural History of the United States_, Vol. I. But there was no real progress in either of these latter classifications, so far as the primary divisions are concerned; for they correspond to the old division of Aristotle, under the head of animals with or without blood, the _Enaima_ and _Anaima_. This coincidence between systems based on different foundations may teach us that every structural combination includes certain inherent necessities which will bring animals together on whatever set of features we try to classify them; so that the division of Aristotle, founded on the circulating fluids, or that of Lamarck, on the absence or presence of a backbone, or that of Ehrenberg, on the differences of the nervous system, cover the same ground. Lamarck attempted also to use the faculties of animals as a groundwork for division among them. But our knowledge of the psychology of animals is still too imperfect to justify any such use of it. His divisions into Apathetic, Sensitive, and Intelligent animals are entirely theoretical. He places, for instance, Fishes and Reptiles among the Intelligent animals, as distinguished from Crustacea and Insects, which he refers to the second division. But one would be puzzled to say how the former manifest more intelligence than the latter, or why the latter should be placed among the Sensitive animals. Again, some of the animals that he calls Apathetic have been proved by later investigators to show an affection an
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33  
34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
animals
 

division

 

divisions

 

nervous

 

Lamarck

 
systems
 
Intelligent
 

Aristotle

 

Ehrenberg

 

Apathetic


Sensitive

 
structural
 

contemporary

 

animal

 

kingdom

 

principle

 

backbone

 

differences

 

affection

 

absence


presence
 

system

 

ground

 
investigators
 
fluids
 
proved
 
attempted
 

inherent

 

features

 

necessities


founded

 
combination
 

includes

 

classify

 

circulating

 
knowledge
 

puzzled

 

theoretical

 

places

 
foundations

instance

 

Crustacea

 

Insects

 
distinguished
 

Fishes

 

Reptiles

 

manifest

 

intelligence

 

psychology

 
refers