Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/453

Rh HISTORY.] REPTILES 435 characters the genera had to be grouped into families within Brongniart's orders. Although many isolated con- tributions were made by various workers, this task could be successfully undertaken and completed in the Paris Museum only, in which, besides Seba's and Lacepede's collections, many other herpetological treasures from other museums had been deposited by the victorious generals of the empire, and to which through Cuvier's reputation objects from every part of the world were attracted in a more peaceful and voluntary manner. The men who itril, devoted themselves to this task were A. M. C. DUMERIL, >9 OPPEL, and CUVIER himself. It is the duty of the bio- grapher rather than the historian to ascertain what share IV ' of the merit in building up the new system should be allotted to each of these three. Oppel was a German who, during his visit to Paris (1807-8), attended the lectures of Dumeril and Cuvier, and at the same time studied the materials to which access was given to him by the latter in the most liberal manner. Dumeril 1 main- tains that Oppel's ideas and information were entirely derived from his lectures, and that Oppel himself avows this to be the case. The passage, 2 however, to which he refers is somewhat ambiguous ; and it is certain that there is the greatest possible difference between the arrange- ment published by Dumeril in 1806 (Zoologie Analytique, Paris, 8vo) and that proposed by Oppel in his Ordnun- gen, Familien, und Gattungender Reptilien (Munich, 1811, 4to). There is no doubt that Oppel profited largely by the teaching of Dumeril ; but, on the other hand, there is sufficient internal evidence in the works of both authors, not only that Oppel worked independently, but also that Dumeril and Cuvier owed much to their younger fellow- labourer, as Cuvier himself indeed acknowledges more than once. Oppel's classification may be shortly indicated thus : ORDER 1. TESTUDINATA OR CH^LONIENS. Fam. 1. CHELONII (gen. Mydas, Coriacca). Fam. 2. AMYD^E (gen. Trionyx, Chelys, Testudo, Emys). ORDER 2. SQUAMATA. Sect. A. SAURII. Fam. 1. CROCODILINI (gen. Crocodilus, Gavialis, Alligator). Fam. 2. GECKOIDES (gen. Gecko, Stellio, Agama). Fam. 3. IGUANOIDES (gen. Cam&leo, Draco, Iguana, Basiliscus, Lopliyrus, Anolis). Fam. 4. LACERTINI (gen. Tupinambis, Dracsena, Lacerta, Tacliy- dromus). Fam. 5. SCINCOIDES (gen. Scincus, Seps, Scheltopusik, Anguis). Fam. 6. CHALCIDICI (gen. Chalcides, Bimanus, Bipes, Oplii- sauriis). Sect. B. OPIUDII. Fam. 1. AKGTJIFORMES (gen. Tortrix, AmpJiisbxna, Typhlops). Fam. 2. CONSTRICTOIIES (gen. Boa, Eryx). Fam. 3. HYDRI (gen. Platurus, Hydrophis). iFam. 4. PSEITDO-VIPERJE (gen. Acrochordus, Erpetori). Fam. 5. CROTALIKI (gen. Crotalus, Trigonocephalus). Fain. 6. VIPERINI (gen. Vipera, Pseudoboa). Fam. 7. COLUBRINI (gen. Coluber, Bungarus). ORDER 3. NUDA OR BATRACII. In this classification we notice three points, which indicate a decided progress towards a natural system. (1) The four orders proposed by Brongniart are no more considered cosubordinate in the class, but the Saurians and Ophidians are associated as sections of the same order, a view held by Aristotle but abandoned by all following naturalists. The distinction between Lizards 1 Erpet. gener., i. p. 259. " Ware es nicht die Ermunterung . . . dieser Freunde gewesen, so wiirde ich iiberzeugt von den Mangeln, denen eine solche Arbeit bei aller mbglichen Vorsicht doch] xinterworfen 1st, es nie gewagt haben, meine Eintheilung bekaimt zu niachen, obwohl selbe Herr Dumeril in seinen Lectionen vom Jahre 1809 schon vorgetragen, und die Thiere im Cabinet darnach bszeichnet hat " (preface, p. viii). A few lines further on he emphatically declares that the classification is based upon his own researches. and Snakes is carried out in so precise a manner that one genus only, Amphisbxna, is wrongly placed. (2) The true Eeptiles have now been entirely divested of all heterogeneous elements by relegating positively Cxcilia to the Batrachians, a view for which Oppel had been fully prepared by Dumeril, who pointed out in 1807 that "les ce"cilies se rapprochent considerablement des batraciens auxquels elles semblent lier 1'ordre entier des serpens." 3 (3) An attempt is made at arranging the genera into families, some of which are still retained at the present day. In thus giving a well-merited prominence to Oppel's labours, we are far from wishing to detract from the influence exercised by the master spirit of this period, Cuvier. Without his guidance Oppel probably never would have found a place among the promoters of herpetological science. But Cuvier's principal researches on Reptiles were incidental or formed part of some more general plan ; Oppel concentrated his on this class only. The latter acquired a more correct view as regards the higher divisions, while Cuvier was enabled by a more detailed study of the genera to define certain families more precisely and arrange them in a more natural manner, and to add not a few to the generic forms. Cuvier adopts the four orders of Reptiles proposed by Brongniart as equivalent elements of the class, and restores the Blind- worms and allied Lizards, and, what is worse, also the Csecilias, to the Ophidians. The Chamaeleons and Geckos are placed in separate groups, and the mode of dividing the latter has been retained to the present day. Also a natural division of the Snakes, although the foreign ele- ments mentioned are admitted into the order, is sufficiently indicated by his arrangement of the "vrais serpens propre- ment dits" as (1) non-venomous Snakes, (2) venomous Snakes with several maxillary teeth, and (3) venomous Snakes with isolated poison-fangs. Without entering into those long descriptions of the species which continue to be the bane of modern zoology, he distinguishes the species of Reptiles with a precision not attained in any previous work, critically examining the literature and adding the principal references. Cuvier's researches into the osteology of Reptiles had not only the object of forming the basis for their arrange- ment, but also of discovering the means of understanding the fossil remains which now claimed the attention of French, English, and German naturalists. Extinct Chelo- nian and Crocodilian remains, Pterodactylus, Mosasaurus, Iguanodon, Ichthyosaurus, Teleosaurus, became the subjects of Cuvier's classical treatises which form the contents of the 5th volume (part 2) of his Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles, oti Von retablit les caracteres des plusieurs animaux dont les revolutions du globe ont detruit -les especes (new ed., Paris, 1824, 4to). All the succeeding herpetologists adopted either Oppel's Blain- or Cuvier's view as to the number of orders of Reptiles, ville - or as to the position Batrachians ought to' take in their relation to Reptiles proper, with the single exception of D. DE BLAINVILLE. He divided the " oviparous subtype" of Vertebrates into four classes, Birds, Reptiles, Amphi- bians, and Fishes, 4 a modification of the system which is all - the more significant as he designates the Reptiles " Squammiferes Ornithoides, ecailleux" and the Amphibians " Nudipelliferes, Ichthyoides nus." In these terms we perceive clear indications of the relations which exist to the class of Birds on the one hand, and to that of Fishes on the other ; they are signs which cast their shadow before them, but, unfortunately, Blainville himself did not follow 3 Memoires de Zoologie et d' Anatomic Comparte, Paris, 1807, 8vo, p. 45. 4 Bull. Sci. Soc. Philomat., July 1816.