Buffon's Natural History. Volume 06 (of 10): Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &cBuffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de
History
Buffon's Natural History. Volume 06 (of 10): Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &c
Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de
Natural history
If we descend by degrees from great to small, from strong to weak, we
find that Nature has uniformly maintained a balance throughout her
works; attentive only to the preservation of each species, she creates
a profusion of individuals, and supports by numbers those she has
formed of a diminutive size, and left unprovided with arms, courage, or
resources; she has not only enabled these inferior species to resist
and maintain their ground by their own numbers, but has added a kind of
supplement to each, by multiplying the neighbouring species. The rat
(_fig. 74._), the mouse (_fig. 76._), the field mouse (_fig. 77._),
the water-rat (_fig. 75._), the short-tailed field mouse (_fig. 78._),
the dormouse, the shrew mouse, with several others, which I shall not
mention here, because they do not belong to our climate, form so many
distinct and separate species, but yet so little varied, that should
any one chance to fail, its absence would be hardly perceptible. It is
this great number of approximate species that first gave naturalists
the idea of genera, an idea which can only be employed when we view
objects in the gross, but which vanishes when we apply it to reality,
or when we consider Nature minutely.
Men began by appropriating different names to objects which appeared
to them distinctly different, and at the same time, they gave general
denominations to such as seemed to resemble each other. Among
unenlightened nations, and in the infancy of languages, there are
hardly any but general names, or vague or ill-formed expressions for
objects of the same order, though in themselves highly different. Thus
the oak, beech, linden, fir, yew, pine, had at first no name but that
of tree; afterwards the oak, beech, and linden, were called oak, when
they came to be distinguished from the fir, pine, and yew, which in
like manner would be called fir. Particular names could proceed only
from a minute examination of each species, and of course those names
would be increased in proportion as the works of Nature were more
studied and better understood; the more they studied her, the more
generic and specific names would be introduced. To represent Nature,
therefore, by general denominations, or genera, is to refer us back
to the dark and infant state of human knowledge. Ignorance produced
genera, but science will ever continue to create proper names; and we
shall not be afraid of increasing the number whenever we have occasion
to delineate different species.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account