Cuvier–Geoffrey debate

The so-called Paris Academy dispute of 1830 was a scientific dispute between the two French naturalists Georges Cuvier and Étienne Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire before the Paris Academy of Sciences.

The dispute began at the Academy meeting on 15 February 1830, when Saint- Hilaire, the work of two young researchers praise presented, in which the anatomy of vertebrate animals was compared with that of the molluscs. Cuvier objected and thus began one of the most famous debates in the history of biology. She retired in eight public disputes until April 15, 1830 back, which Cuvier is considered the winner of the dispute.

• 3.1 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832 )
• 3.2 Alexander von Humboldt ( 1769-1859 )
• 3.3 dispute at the Académie des Beaux -Arts

Prehistory

Development and human image in 1830

In 1830 Charles Darwin had not yet developed his theory of evolution and natural scientists were busy trying to describe the diversity of nature, organize and explain. Key pioneers of today's taxonomy were Carl Linnaeus, who in 1735 with his work Systema Naturae published a first classification of living things and gained Georges- Louis Leclerc de Buffon, the important findings for the determination and delimitation of species.

The researchers also dealt with the origin and diversity of life. They assumed that all beings created by God and therefore are perfect and have not changed since the creation ( types of Constance). Thus, the fossil record had long time to be agreed with the Christian creation myth. In the Flood theory, for example, fossils have been interpreted as antediluvian creatures that drowned during the 40 days of flooding and are petrified by their decline.

Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) was an early proponent of the theory of evolution. He believed that nature always bring forth new designs, from the simplest forms of life starting up to the most complex design, man. Even Jean -Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829) did not believe in the fixity of species and assumed that every organism reacts to changing environmental conditions. So after Lamarck organs were strengthened with frequent use, and weakened when not in use. To this end, he believed that the newly acquired properties would be inheritable. A significant difference between Darwin and Lamarck's theory of evolution was Lamarck's teleology: The inner urge for perfection that is inherent in every organism, according to Lamarck, let him be targeted to more complex and better forms develop. Lamarck was the first to that timeline had to be extended, since the evolution of slowly and gradually had vonstattengehen. For a long time we had used the biblical timeline and therefore believed that since the creation until nearly 6000 years had passed.

Cuvier and Geoffroy positions

Georges Cuvier considered the founder of modern paleontology. He did not believe in evolution. Investigations of mummified cats from Egypt confirmed his initial suspicion of a fixity of species, as these did not differ from Egyptian cats of his time.

During excavations in the Paris Basin, he hinted at the many layers of the earth with their fossils as earlier creations, which were destroyed by disasters again. He is regarded as the most important representative of the Kataklysmentheorie. Cuvier classified all living beings into four "branches" or " embranchments " ( branches ): Vertebrata, Articulata, Mollusca and Radiata. This " embranchements " were fundamentally different for him and a relationship or connection among them he considered to be excluded. Similarities between animals, according to Cuvier were due to the same functions, but not on kinship or lineage.

He believed that every part of the body was consistent in form and function perfectly on the other. Organisms were functional units and the smallest change in one part would destroy the whole balance. It also means that Cuvier was an excellent anatomist and was based on a single bone in a position to reconstruct the whole animal.

In contrast to Cuvier Étienne Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire believe in evolution, especially in a kinship of all living things, a relationship which, however, was probably not understood as "descent relationship ", but as a continuous morphological similarity. The common divined basic blueprint, plan d' organization of all organisms he called " unité de composition" (unit of composition) or " unité de plan " ( unity of the construction plan ). He did not try as Cuvier to distinguish and classify living things, but instead sought similarities that testified a unity of plan.

He called Such similarities analogies. For Geoffroy the form ( the function and not, as in Cuvier ) was decisive. This was before the skills and opportunities of living beings. Geoffroy was the German natural philosophers - including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - very close, even though they were not in France to a high reputation.

The end of the academy dispute ( with some examples )

The dispute began with the work of two young and unknown scientist, Meyranx and Laurencet. This sent in October 1829 discussion of molluscs (soft animals ) to the Académie des sciences. By means of the octopus tried to prove that the internal organs of a vertebrate are arranged in a manner similar to the molluscs when it is bent to the rear, that the neck contacts the buttocks. On February 8, 1830 Pierre André Latreille and Geoffroy were commissioned in the weekly meeting of the Académie, prepare a report on it.

Geoffroy, who was enthusiastic about the work, because they "unity of composition" supported his thesis of, applauded the two young scientists on February 15 at the meeting of the Académie a week later. He saw in this work to prove that the four " embranchements " Cuvier can be united.

Geoffroy continued that the concentration is a method of the past on the differences of the animals. Instead, the object of his early Zoology is the knowledge of the philosophical similarities of life. As an example, an old-fashioned view of the molluscs he quoted, without mentioning the title and author, from Cuvier's " Mémoire sur les céphalopodes et sur ​​leur anatomy " (Treatise on the cephalopods and their anatomy). Geoffroy ended his report with a recommendation that the treatise to be published in the Journal of the Academy for non-members.

Thus provoked Cuvier took the word, the authors of the article claimed subject completely wrong with their alleged homology and promised to explain his criticism in a future essay.

A week later, on February 22, Cuvier came prepared for the Academy session. Based on a sketch of a cephalopod and a diffracted backwards vertebrate, namely a duck, he tried to show that these phyla have quite a lot in common organs ( such as brain, eyes, ears, salivary gland, etc.), however no reason to believe would be that they possessed a common blueprint. Moreover, with his great knowledge of the anatomy of the cephalopods, he proved Meyranx and Laurencet gross errors in reasoning and thus broke their thesis. He then criticized the terminology Geoffroy and put them into question. Your missing his opinion, the necessary clarity and precision, the terms " unity of composition" and " unity of the construction plan " suggested, the organs in living things are equal and positioned the same present. Much rather would have the word " unit " are replaced by " analogy ". Last Cuvier turned to Laurencets and Meyranx ' treatise, pointing with the aid of diagrams that organs in molluscs and vertebrates, are often arranged differently in spite of to-back bending and that organs of vertebrates do not are often present in molluscs and vice versa.

Geoffroy then improvised a short answer and promised to give a longer answer at the next meeting.

On March 1, Geoffroy presented his response and promoted by the dispute over the anatomy of molluscs addition to a philosophical level. Geoffroy claimed that he intended to define the term "unity of composition" never accurate because this not be possible. With similarities he meant rather philosophical similarities than obvious.

To illustrate his theory of analogies to Geoffroy turned to the example of the hyoid bone. This consists in humans of five, in cats of nine parts. In order to verify its homology, it did not need a consideration of the functions (these are the same for both: the support of the larynx ), instead sought Geoffroy after the rudiments of the four missing pieces in humans. This he finally found the pencil- shaped extensions ( Singl.: styloid process of temporal ossis ) are, in turn, connected to the temporal bone of the human skull, the stylohyoid through the ligament, a band with the hyoid bone. The embryology confirmed his thesis: Geoffroy observed in the human fetus, that the styloid process was not originally attached to the skull, and thus was a rudiment of the hyoid bone.

This was followed by a two week break. On March 22, Cuvier continued, he went to the example of the hyoid bone. He noted that the significant, drum-like hyoid bone of the howler monkeys no traces of the earlier horns ( see Fig hyoid bone ), the stylohyoid ligament or of the styloid process of wear and thus could not be a modification of the tongue legs of other mammals. He conceded that this may have some similarity in higher vertebrates, however, this would result from their similar functions. Finally Cuvier spoke to the religious question. He suggested that the "unity of composition" mean unnecessary restrictions for the Creator and that thought was the progress of science more of a hindrance:

Geoffroy, the Académie not allowed to answer directly, only remained to carry forward his prepared for the session item on the analogies in fish. So he went in to the accusation Cuvier to have the underlying dispute, the molluscs abandoned. Geoffroy established his detour to the hyoid bone and the fish so that the study of homologies was not progressed between molluscs and vertebrates at the time sufficient to allow a fruit-bearing discussion. Before they could but come to the consideration of the molluscs, must first understand the structure of the fish that occupied a place between the higher vertebrates and non vertebrates.

The Académie session on March 29 began with an argument of the opponents about who should start. Geoffroy was of the opinion that he had the right, now to respond to Cuvier's observations on the hyoid bone, Cuvier, however, said that as Geoffroy had recently presented at the last meeting, he himself now turn again. Geoffroy was eventually passed the word, and he maintained that there was no disagreement about facts, but a question of philosophy, which separate them. Cuvier would not have understood his concern to seek the importance of similarities that are disguised as apparent dissimilarities. The value of the theory of analogies is that it provides an explanation for different structures.

The meeting on 5 April should be only the latest. Cuvier now examined the sternum in mammals, birds and reptiles, and came to the conclusion that there could be no uniformity here, as the sternum differed both in the number of their parts, and in the linking of the individual parts to one another. He found animals with sternum and ribs, animals with ribs without sternum (snakes ), as well as animals with sternum and ribs without (frogs ).

The meetings had now received such attention that public seats were overstaffed every week. The scientific dispute threatened due to the large and noisy crowd of degenerating into a spectacle. Therefore, Geoffroy announced that he will not answer to Cuvier's lecture. Instead, he tried to publish the controversy. On April 15, he sent the document to print, the zoologique under the name Principes de philosophie an introduction, the report on Meyranx ' and Laurencets essay and the points made in the meetings, now annotated essays Cuvier and Geoffroy contained.

Effect on his contemporaries

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

The German poet, scientist and statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe took more than 81 -year-old big part in the debate. He was a follower Geoffroy and raised the subject also to a German audience close by in two articles in the yearbooks [n ] for scientific criticism September 1830 and March 1832, he discussed it.

Goethe began his discussion by presenting the conflict and their counterparties. He described Cuvier as " tireless discriminator " and Geoffroy as " the analogies of the creatures and their mysterious relationship endeavors ," suggesting that the conflict was actually a dispute between the principles of deduction and induction.

In the second section he described his own research on the premaxilla. Goethe believed, namely, that man as the other mammals has exactly one premaxillary bones. 1784 was able to demonstrate to him that this man ( embryo) together grows before birth with the rest of the upper jaw. Goethe saw in the presence of the intermaxillary bone in humans, no evidence for the phylogenetic relationship of man with the animals. Rather, he saw in the existence of the intermaxillary bone in humans and in vertebrates a confirmation of his image of nature, which may bring forth her " creatures " in accordance with uniform, to be observed in all animals and, indeed, the man-made laws. Copies of his book on the " interosseous " Goethe sent the Dutch physician Peter Camper and the German anatomist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach that Goethe's work, however, ignored. His method of comparative anatomy, which he used for this proof, many years later he was again at Geoffroy.

"I have toiled for fifty years in this great matter; initially lonely, then support and last surmounted, to my great joy by kindred spirits. When I sent my first Aperçu from the intermediate bone to Peter Camper, I was at my most heartfelt sorrow completely ignored. With Blumenbach I felt no better, although he stepped on my site for personal transport. But then I won like-minded people to Sömmering, Oken, D' Alton, Carus and other equally admirable men. Now is now Geoffroy de Saint- Hilaire decided all of his major disciples and followers of France on our side and with him. This event for me is quite incredible value, and I Cheer with law over the last experienced victory of a general thing, which I have devoted my life and quite excellent also mine is. "

" Dedicated to life" and be the " thing " that Goethe had in which he saw now confirmed by Geoffroy de Saint- Hilaire is, was this realization: The " Nature " is not unlimited free; it is subjected to in their " formative impulse " the universally recognized law of " budgets ", the house keeping. Freedom on one side is compensated by " conditionality " on another.

Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)

The academy dispute between the two zoologists Georges Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire was ultimately the public culmination of a debate begun in 1820. This is now public discussion of the academy dispute in the plenary of the Academy of Sciences was held in the July Revolution of 1830, more from February to October. . Immediate cause of the July Revolution were the " Juliordonnanzen " from July 26, 1830, King Charles X ( 1757-1836 ) from the House of Bourbon was restituted on 25 July 1830 in several orderlies in the 1814 imposed constitution enshrined liberties severely limit; so the selected until June 1830 Chamber of Deputies was dissolved, curtailed freedom of the press, and limited the right to vote.

Alexander von Humboldt knew the two disputants personally and had the opportunity to debate the partially locally, in Paris, keep track. Between 1830 and 1831 he also attended lectures at the Collège de France Cuvier. It should, however, have more Humboldt position tends to Geoffroy Saint -Hilaire. Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire had formulated the hypothesis of the unity of the design: The matching anatomical basic structure of all vertebrates he expanded to other animal phyla. Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire thereby entered into contrary to Cuvier's classification of the animal kingdom into four separate groups (vertebrates, mollusks, arthropods and Radiation animals). The central theme of the dispute was the question of whether analogous forms in vertebrates and invertebrates could be detected or whether Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire idea of ​​the Unité de composition organique principle was not an empirically baseless speculation. The position of Cuvier with the restoration regime has been linked against the background of political debate during the July Revolution, he had held a number of political and scientific administrative offices. Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire contrast appeared as a more progressive, liberal scholar. Humboldt saw in a commingling of politics and science, a flattening of the scientific argument. Furthermore, in his scientific papers and letters avoided a clear statement in favor of one of the disputants.

Dispute at the Académie des Beaux -Arts

At the same time the academy dispute itself sparked a controversy at the Académie des Beaux -Arts de Quatremère between Quincy and Henri Labrouste. Was triggered the dispute after Labrouste the coveted "Prix de Rome ", won a design competition in which the winner was sent to Italy to study the architecture of antiquity there. Labrouste drawings sent to Paris, where he portrayed the famous temple ruins in Paestum and reconstructed, which was quite common at that time. However, he yielded with this reconstruction not expected neoclassical answer, but interpreted architecture as changeable and each local conditions, available materials and practical concerns of the builders adapting. Quatremère, secretary of the Académie des Beaux -Arts, felt Labrouste drawings as offensive, as represented a perfect and eternal form for him the Greek temple. This release led to a discussion that has many parallels and linkages to the Paris Academy in dispute.

Quatremère for example, a similar authority figure such as Cuvier, believed in three "types" of architecture ( cave temple, tent), to which every form of building let traced. These three "types" were independent and a mixture unthinkable. Quatremères "types" are evocative of formal purity and rigidity strongly Cuvier " embranchements " and in its immutability of Cuvier's faith a fixity of species. Labrouste and his followers, however, believed in the mutability of architecture, which was accompanied by the socio- historical-cultural changes in the environment of their inhabitants. The architect Léonce Reynaud (1803-1880) who, like his brother, the philosopher and editor Jean Reynaud, in the retinue was Labrouste, developed for this avant-garde architecture refers to the metaphor of the molluscs. He understood architecture as a shell of human society in the process of evolution (evolution in the sense of Lamarck ). The brothers Reynaud were also friends and followers Geoffroy.

Important in this context is the political atmosphere in France in 1830. The July Revolution of 1830 represents the culmination of the conflict between autocratic monarchists and the bourgeoisie, consisting of constitutional monarchists and republicans, dar. The academy dispute and the dispute at the Académie des Beaux -Arts were also used in the further polarization of the reactionary and the liberal or radical camp. The former supported rather Cuvier and Quatremère and the second consists of new ideas Geoffroy, Labrouste and his followers. The metaphor of mollusks gained a new meaning here. The expandable shell of mollusks became a model for social reformation.

As a final parallel is still the each borrowed vocabulary noted. Reynaud was his metaphor for a new concept of architecture in zoology, whereas Geoffroy and Cuvier terms such as " composition", " plan " or " plan ", " Embranchement " (branch ), " material " of the ( city ) withdrawals architecture.

Others

• The French writer Honoré de Balzac in 1835 Geoffroy sent a copy of his novel Louis Lambert, in which a " Dr. Meyraux "occurs. The fact that in this these were the " Meyranx " Academy of dispute, is in a great man from the province in Paris (1837-1843 in Lost Illusions, ) clear:

• On August 2, 1830, came between Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Frédéric Soret to the following misconception: The news of the July Revolution started today came to Weimar and did everything in excitement. I went in the afternoon to Goethe. "Well, " he called out to me, " what do you think of this great event? The volcano has erupted; everything is on fire, and it is not also a negotiation with the doors closed! " " A terrible story ," I replied. "But what could be in the known conditions and with such a ministry expect more than that would end with the expulsion of the former royal family. " " We seem not to understand my very best ," said Goethe. "I do not speak of those people; it is for me to completely different things. I'm talking about the in the academy for public outburst -down, for science as highly significant dispute between Cuvier and Geoffroy de Saint- Hilaire! "