Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
BUFFON, GEORGES-LOUIS LECLERC, COMTE
DE (b. Montbard, France, 7 September 1707; d. Paris,
France, 16 April 1788); natural history.
of the same species that which by means of copulation
perpetuates itself and preserves the similarity of that
species” (ibid., Histoire des animaux, p. 236A). If the
product of such mating is sterile, as is the mule, the
parents are of different species. Any other criterion,
particularly resemblance, is insufficient “because the
mule resembles the horse more than the water
spaniel resembles the greyhound” (ibid., Histoire
naturelle de l'âne, p. 356A).
If the species exists in nature, the family does not:
“. . . one must not forget that these families are our
creation, we have devised them only to comfort our
own minds” (ibid., p. 355B). All classification is therefore
arbitrary and has no merit other than convenience.
Buffon violently attacked Linneaus and praised
Tournefort. He himself followed an order that he
believed to be “easier, pleasanter, and more useful”
than any other, without being any more arbitrary—“taking
the objects that are the most interesting to
us because of their relation to us, and gradually
moving toward those that are more distant” (ibid.,
Sur la manière . . . , p. 17B). In the order Buffon
followed, the dog follows the horse because, in reality,
the dog “is accustomed, in fact, to [so] follow” (ibid.,
p. 18A). Buffon's order is formed by a philosophical
bias rather than by science.
For Buffon to admit the concept of family, it would
have to correspond to a reality. Thus:
If these families really existed, they could have been
formed only through the crossing, successive variation,
and degeneration of original species; and if one once
concedes that there are families of both plants and
animals, that the donkey is of the horse family and only
differs because it has degenerated, one could also say
that the monkey is a member of the family of man and
is merely a degenerated man, that man and monkey
have a common origin just like the horse and mule,
that each family . . . has only one founder and even
that all animals came from one single animal which,
with the passage of time, by simultaneously perfecting
itself and degenerating, produced all of the races of the
other animals [ibid., Histoire naturelle de l'âne, p.
355B-356A].
Because he rejected the concept of family and
denied the value of making classifications, Buffon also
rejected, at the beginning of his work, the hypothesis
of generalized transformism offered by Maupertuis
in 1751 in the Système de la nature. Buffon's theory
of reproduction and the role he attributes to the
“internal mold,” as the guardian of the form of the
species, prevented him from being a transformist.
This same theory of reproduction did not prevent
Buffon from believing in the appearance of varieties
within a species, however. Buffon believed in the
heredity of acquired characteristics; climate, food,
and domestication modify the animal type. From his
exhaustive research for the Histoire naturelle des
quadrupèdes, Buffon came to the conclusion that it
was necessary to reintroduce the notion of family. But
he attributes to this word—or to the word genus,
which he also uses—a special meaning: a family
consists of animals which although separated by
“nature,” instinct, life style, or geographical habitat
are nevertheless able to produce viable young (that
is, animals which belong biologically to the same
species, e.g., the wolf and the dog). What the naturalist
terms species and family, then, will thus become,
for the biologist, variety and species. Buffon was thus
able to write, in 1766, the essay De la dégénération
des animaux—in which he showed himself to be a
forerunner of Lamarck—while he continued to affirm
the permanence of species in the two Vues de la nature
(1764-1765) and Époques de la nature (1779).
Buffon's final point of view concerning the history
of living beings can be summarized as follows: No
sooner were organic molecules formed than they
spontaneously grouped themselves to form living
organisms. Many of these organisms have since disappeared,
either because they were unable to subsist
or because they were unable to reproduce. The others,
which responded successfully to the essential demands
of life, retained a basically similar constitution—Buffon
affirms unity in the plan of animals' composition
and, in variations on that plan, the principle of
the subordination of organs. Since the earth was
very hot and “nature was in its first stage of activity,”
the first creatures able to survive were extremely
large. The earth's cooling drove them from the North
Pole toward the equator and then finally caused
their extinction. Buffon offered this in explanation
of the giant fossils discovered in Europe and North
America, which he studied at length (to the point of
becoming one of the founders of paleontology). The
organic molecules which were left free in the northern
regions formed smaller creatures which in turn moved
toward the equator, and then a third and fourth
generation, which also moved south. Originating in
Siberia, these animal species spread out to southern
Europe and Africa, and toward southern Asia and
North America. Only South America had an original
fauna, different from that of other continents.
In the process of migration, the species varied in
response to environment. There are few varieties of
the large mammals because they reproduce slowly.
The smaller mammals (rodents, for example) offer a
large number of varieties because they are very
prolific. The same is true of birds. Going back to the
basic types, quadrupeds may be divided into thirteen