1. INTRODUCTION
3
(1627-1705) and Karl Linnaeus (1707-1778) collected a number of
comparative data from which they built their classificatory systems and
nomenclatures—a work which has been extended by many successors
and which is not yet complete as new animals and plants are constantly
being discovered.
The work of taxonomists has been a rich source of biological concepts, and it is worthwhile to go back to the origins of classificatory activities based upon the comparison of living forms. From the comparisons made by Aristotle, two conclusions appeared: in nature, there
are "genera" displaying a real consistency; and in order to identify
genera exactly it is necessary to pay attention to all characters which,
taken one by one, might either separate or unite them. Taxonomy is,
therefore, a mirror of the state of empirical knowledge of classified
organisms.
The method introduced by Linnaeus into zoology was marked by a
categorical affirmation of the natural reality of species and genus. For
him, species and genera were inherent in nature, to be discovered by
observation. His method and the consequent results brought Linnaeus
to a speculative concept of wholeness according to which the living
world, or as we would say today, the biosphere, is a well ordered whole
in which each class realized a part of the possibilities allowed by God
and accomplished this role in equilibrium with the roles of the other
classes.
If, at the end of the eighteenth century, the "methods" of taxonomy
were considered necessary, many biologists were unsatisfied with the
acceptance of a taxonomic system as representing the fundamental relationships between organisms. A new, fruitful and decisive advance
was then introduced by George Cuvier (1769-1832) based upon a mass
of new comparative data. For Cuvier, the work of nomenclature ("die
gar kein Kopf erfordert" as he writes to his German friend Pfaff in
1788) provides only the lexicon of natural history but does not teach
the language. His first tendency was to study the forces and functions
for which the great diversity of forms and functions serve as instruments. But at that stage his concept of physiology was in fact, the concept of anatomia animata. Cuvier, in agreement with the current
views of his time concerning the "economy" of the interrelationships
among organisms, had in mind a thorough study of functional interrelationships, of mutual (physical and physiological) interactions of organisms, and a search for an explanation built upon the internal mechanisms in each organism. Until then, anatomy had been the domain of
medical men. It was quite a new development for a zoologist to look
for comparative aspects of animals with scalpel and forceps. The de-
3
(1627-1705) and Karl Linnaeus (1707-1778) collected a number of
comparative data from which they built their classificatory systems and
nomenclatures—a work which has been extended by many successors
and which is not yet complete as new animals and plants are constantly
being discovered.
The work of taxonomists has been a rich source of biological concepts, and it is worthwhile to go back to the origins of classificatory activities based upon the comparison of living forms. From the comparisons made by Aristotle, two conclusions appeared: in nature, there
are "genera" displaying a real consistency; and in order to identify
genera exactly it is necessary to pay attention to all characters which,
taken one by one, might either separate or unite them. Taxonomy is,
therefore, a mirror of the state of empirical knowledge of classified
organisms.
The method introduced by Linnaeus into zoology was marked by a
categorical affirmation of the natural reality of species and genus. For
him, species and genera were inherent in nature, to be discovered by
observation. His method and the consequent results brought Linnaeus
to a speculative concept of wholeness according to which the living
world, or as we would say today, the biosphere, is a well ordered whole
in which each class realized a part of the possibilities allowed by God
and accomplished this role in equilibrium with the roles of the other
classes.
If, at the end of the eighteenth century, the "methods" of taxonomy
were considered necessary, many biologists were unsatisfied with the
acceptance of a taxonomic system as representing the fundamental relationships between organisms. A new, fruitful and decisive advance
was then introduced by George Cuvier (1769-1832) based upon a mass
of new comparative data. For Cuvier, the work of nomenclature ("die
gar kein Kopf erfordert" as he writes to his German friend Pfaff in
1788) provides only the lexicon of natural history but does not teach
the language. His first tendency was to study the forces and functions
for which the great diversity of forms and functions serve as instruments. But at that stage his concept of physiology was in fact, the concept of anatomia animata. Cuvier, in agreement with the current
views of his time concerning the "economy" of the interrelationships
among organisms, had in mind a thorough study of functional interrelationships, of mutual (physical and physiological) interactions of organisms, and a search for an explanation built upon the internal mechanisms in each organism. Until then, anatomy had been the domain of
medical men. It was quite a new development for a zoologist to look
for comparative aspects of animals with scalpel and forceps. The de-