Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/455

HISTORY, EEPTILES 437 zoological nomenclature. The labours of Wiegmann, Miiller, Dumeril, and Bibron exercised no influence on him, and when he commenced to publish a new system of Reptiles in 1843, 1 of which fortunately one fasciculus only appeared, he exhibited a classification in which morphological facts are entirely superseded by fanciful ideas of the vaguest kind of physiosophy, each class of vertebrates being divided into five " sense " series, and each series into three orders, one comprising forms of superior, the second of medium, and the third of inferior development. In the generic arrangement of the species, to which Fitzinger devoted himself especially in this work, he equally failed to advance science. From a superficial study of such species as were accessible to him, but chiefly from the descriptions of other authors, he selected any characters for the . establishment of genera, and, abandoning entirely the value of a genus as a systematic category, he introduced a number of names, under the cloak of which he hid the superficiality of his work ; many were adopted by his suc- cessors, who, however, had to substantiate their validity by a deeper study of the taxonomic characters. We have now arrived at a period distinguished by the appearance of a work which, by the ability of its authors, by the comprehensiveness of its scope, by the treatment of the general subject as well as of the details, superseded all its predecessors, which formed the basis for the labours of many succeeding years, and which will always remain one of the classical monuments of descriptive zoology, the Erpetologie Generale ou Histoire Naturelle complete des eril Reptiles of A. M. C. DUMERIL and G. BIBRON (Paris, 8vo). The first volume appeared in 1834, and the ninth and last )U - in 1854. No naturalist of that time could have been better qualified for the tremendous undertaking than C. Dumeril, who almost from the first year of half a century's con- nexion with the then largest collection of Reptilia had chiefly devoted himself to their study. The task would have been too great for the energy of a single man ; it was, therefore, fortunate for Dumeril that he found a most devoted fellow-labourer in one of his assistants, G. Bibron, whose abilities equalled those of the master, but who, to the great loss of science, died (in 1848) before the completion of the work. Dumeril had the full benefit of Bibron's knowledge for the volumes containing the Snakes, but the last volume, which treats of the Tailed Batrachians, had to be prepared by Dumeril alone. The work is the first which gives a comprehensive scientific account of Reptiles generally, their structure, physiology, and literature. Nearly the whole of the first volume is devoted to these chapters. And again each of the four orders admitted by the authors is introduced by a similar general account. In the body of the work 121 Chelonians, 468 Saurians, 586 Ophidians, and 218 Batra- chians are described in detail and with the greatest pre- cision. On the principles of arrangement of the various orders we shall have to speak subsequently, and we men- tion here only that, singularly enough, the authors revert to Brongniart's arrangement, in which the Batrachians are co-ordinate with the other three orders of Reptiles. 2 This must appear all the more strange as Von Baer 3 in 1828, and J. Miiller 4 in 1831, had urged, besides other essential differences, the important fact that no Batrachian 1 Systema Reptilium, Vienna, 1843, 8vo. 2 _The author of the article AMPHIBIA in the present work (vol. i. p. 750) states that Gunther, like Dumeril and Bibron, in his Catalogue, in substance, adopts Brongniart's " arrangement." There is no founda- tion whatever for this statement, the relation of the Batrachians to the class of Reptiles not being even alluded to in that work. In a later division of the Reptilia by Giinther (Phil. Trans., 1867) the Batrachians are likewise excluded. 3 Entwicklunrjfsrji>schichtK der Thiere, p. 262. 4 Tiedemann's Zeitschrift fur Physioloyie, vol. iv. p. 200. embryo possesses either an ammon or an allantois, like a Reptile. 4. Period of the /Separation of Reptiles and Batrachians as Distinct Classes or Subclasses. In the chronological order which we have adopted for these historical notes, we had to refer in their proper places to two herpetologists, Blainville and Latreille, who advocated a deeper than merely ordinal separation of Reptiles from Batrachians, and who were followed by F. S. Leuckart. But thi view only now began to find more general acceptance. J. J. Miiller HOLLER and STANNIUS were guided in their classification and entirely by anatomical characters, and consequently recog- stannius - nized the wide gap which separates the Batrachians from the Reptiles ; yet they considered them merely as sub- classes of the class Amphibia. The former directed his attention particularly to those forms which seemed to occupy an intermediate position between Lacertilians and Ophidians, and definitely relegated Anguis, Pseudopus> Acontias to the former, and Typhlops, Rhinophis, Tortrix, but also the Amphisbaanoids to the latter. Stannius interpreted the characteristics of the Amphisbaenoids dif- ferently, as will be seen from the following abstract of his classification 5 : SUBCLASSIS : AMPHIBIA MONOPNOA (Leuckart). SECT. 1. STREPTOSTYLICA (Stann.). Quadrate bone arti- culated to the skull ; copulatory organs paired, placed out- side the cloacal cavity. ORDO 1. OPHIDIA. Subordo 1. EURYSTOMATA or MACROSTOMATA (Mull.). The facial bones are loosely connected to admit of great extension of the wide mouth. Subordo 2. ANGIOSTOMATA or MICROSTOMATA (Miill.). Mouth narrow, not extensile ; quadrate bone attached to the skull and not to a mastoid. ORDO 2. SAURIA. Subordo 1. AMPHISB^NOIDEA. Subordo 2. KIONOCRANIA (Stann. ) = Lizards. Subordo 3. CHAM^LEONIDEA. SECT. 2. MONIMOSTYLICA (Stann.). Quadrate bone suturally united with the skull ; copulatory organ simple, placed, within the cloaca. ORDO 1. CHELONIA. ORDO 2. CKOCODILIA. This classification received the addition of a fifth Rep- tilian order which with many Lacertilian characters com- bined important Crocodilian affinities, and in certain other respects differed from both, viz., the New Zealand ffatteria, which by its first describers had been placed to the Agamoid Lizards. GuNTHER, 6 who pointed out the characteristics of this Reptile, considered it to be coordi- nate with the other four orders of Reptiles, and charac- terizes it thus : Rhynchocephalia. Quadrate bone suturally and immov- ably united with the skull and pterygoid ; columella present. Rami of the mandible united as in Lacertilians. Temporal region with two horizontal bars. Vertebrae amphicoelian. Copulatory organs none. 5. Period of the Recognition of a Class of Reptilia as part of the Sauropsida. Although so far the discovery of every new morphological and developmental fact had pre- pared naturalists for a class separation of Reptiles and Batrachians, it was left to T. H. Huxley to demonstrate, not merely that the weight of facts demanded such a class separation, but that the Reptiles hold the same relation to Birds as the Batrachians to Fishes. In his Hunterian Lectures (1863) he divided the vertebrates into Mammals, Sauroids, and Ichthyoids, subsequently substituting for the last two the terms Sauropsida and Ic/ithyopsida. 7 The 5 Siebold and Stannius, Handbuch der Zootomie Zootomie der Amphibie-n,, 2d ed. Berlin, 1856, 8vo. 6 " Contribution to the Anatomy of ffatteria (Rhynchocephalus, Owen)," in Phil. Trans., 1867, part ii. 7 An Introduction to the Classification of Animals, London, 1869, 8vo, pp. 104 sq.