User:Sharksarehellarad/sandbox

Cuvier-Geoffrey debate - needs major improvement, nearly no information available on current page, completely missing from Cuvier page.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/essay-cuvier-geoffroy-debate

Paul Farber - finding order in nature (requested from library)

entire book on it by Toby Appel (acquired from library)

Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology - by Edward Stuart Russel (found all online via library)

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/15993#page/9/mode/1up

"struggle between 'comparative anatomy' and morphology'". Russel meant to make it clear that Cuvier's comparative anatomy approach was the right course for future biology. Cuvier did not agree with evolution mostly because he only studied bone structures and skeletons, and those forms often stayed conserved for the most part through evolution.

The Cuvier–Geoffroy debate of 1830 was a scientific dispute between the two French naturalists Georges Cuvier and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

Early Lives
Both shared a love for classification and description but grew up with different influences. Geoffrey came to Paris to study medicine, law and philosophy in early 1789, but shifted to the study of zoology not long after. When a priest mentor of Geoffrey's became caught up in the political turmoil of the revolution of 1789, it was through Geoffrey's testimony that the priest was released from prison. Making friends in the church led to his eventual appointment as a zoology professor in the Royal Garden (later became the Museum of Natural History), when a post was vacated due to more political problems. While he was only twenty one years old at the time, this position gave Geoffrey access to resources and natural collections in which he built his future theories on nature. He was even able to accompany Napoleon on an expedition to Egypt in 1798 where he studied mummies and made hypotheses on change over time in humans and other organisms. Geoffrey agreed with Buffon in that any classification system was arbitrary and thus somewhat empty, but he nonetheless attempted to find the general laws that applied to all organisms in nature. It was in his memoir Philosophie anatomique, published in 1818, that he first put his ideas on animal form and structure into print.

Cuvier grew up reading the works of Linnaeus and was mostly self-taught through dissection and measurements of organisms. Before their well-known rivalry developed, the two scientists began as close colleagues and friends. George Cuvier met a member of the Academy of Sciences, Henri-Alexandre Tessier, in Normandy in 1794 while he a young man tutoring the children of the wealthy. Tessier was blown away by Cuvier's talent and skill, and soon after wrote glowing letters to established scientists like Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and another, Jussier. Geoffroy was charmed by Cuvier's detailed descriptions of animals and his precise sketches and decided to invite him to "come to Paris. Come play among us the role of another legislator of natural history." When Cuvier joined him at the Museum, other colleagues warned Geoffrey against mentoring him, suggesting that this brilliant young scientist would eventually surpass him. Despite this premonition, both scientists worked side by side and wrote five papers together on the classification of mammals, the two-horned African rhino, species of elephants, descriptions of the tarsier, and the biology of the orangutan. It was not long before Cuvier began to make a name for himself individually too, as he was highly skilled at reaching out to patrons, networking and acquiring funding for his research. By 1976, Cuvier was working on his eventually famous papers on extinction, merely two years after joining the Museum, while Geoffrey had barely began to publish. One of the most significant events that solidified the split between the two scientists was Cuvier's appointment to the Academy of Sciences on December 17, 1795 as one of the six original members of anatomy and zoology. Cuvier was only twenty-six years old (seventeen years Geoffrey's junior) and the youngest member at the time, while Geoffrey was not given admittance to the Academy for another twelve years.

Differing Viewpoints
Prior to the debate, biological scientists were generally split into two major factions: whether animal structure was determined by functional needs of an animal (Cuvier) or a basic unified form that was modified across all animal forms (Geoffrey). By determining the answer to this question, scientists could also shed light on the mechanisms of the evolution of species, as well as potentially finding a useful system to classify species to best understand the order of nature. George Cuvier was an influential scientist with a significant political power and many prominent positions: permanent secretary at the French Academie of Science, a professorship at the Museum of Natural History and the College of France, as well as a Council member at the University of France. Cuvier stuck to "positive facts" of science and refused to flirt with hypotheses and unsupported ideas. This attitude sprang from worries that this kind of thinking would lead to unrest and disorder in France as the French Revolution had torn through only a few decades before. Cuvier encouraged young scientists to stick with facts and often won them over easily due to his strong reputation as a good ally to have in science. His political ties and academic connections gave his ideas a broader audience and generally more historical recognition. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was heavily influenced by Buffon and Lamarck; Cuvier was known as Lamarck's greatest critic, as Cuvier felt Lamack was too speculative without enough facts to back up his theories. Geoffrey thought of facts as building blocks to science while new ideas would lead to real discovery, occasionally dipping more into philosophical hypotheses instead of testable or demonstrated research. Geoffroy kept his unpopular ideas under wraps when advantageous to his career but found it increasingly difficult to stay passive as he got older and more well known. He may even have welcomed the debate between himself and Cuvier as a chance to liven up the discussions in the Academy and generate new ideas.

The Debate (1830)
While the two biologists had disagreed on animal structure subtly through their publications, talks with other scientists at Academy meetings, and in private, a paper on mollusks written by two relatively unknown scientists drew Geoffrey and Cuvier at arms. The paper, written by Meyranx and Laurencet, was assigned to Geoffrey and Pierre André Latreille to review and report to the Academy. Meyranx and Laurencet's conclusions grabbed Geoffrey's attention by suggesting a link between vertebrate and mollusk internal anatomy. With thousands of drawings of mollusks and multiple essays, the authors argued that the organ arrangement of a mollusk resembled vertebrate organ arrangement, if the vertebrate bent backwards so that the neck was connected to the backside. Geoffrey found support for his unity of composition which would unite the vertebrates and mollusks -two of Cuvier's published embranchments of animals - on one common plan.

Geoffrey's Initial Report
On February 15 1830, Geoffrey presented his report to the Academy. In an epilogue that was eventually removed from the final report at Cuvier's insistence, Geoffrey made an obvious jab at Cuvier by ridiculing the "old way" of describing nature by focusing on differences instead of similarities. While Geoffrey did not cite the paper or author, he quoted from a work of Cuvier's from 1817, "Memoir on the Cephalopods and on Their Anatomy". Cuvier disagreed vehemently with the report and paper's findings, promising to further explain his argument in future writings.

Cuvier's First Response
At the next meeting of the Academy on February 22, Cuvier came fully prepared with detailed, labeled, colorful drawings, in particular one of an octopus and another of a duck bent backwards, and a new memoir called "Considerations on the Mollusks and in Particular on the Cephalopods". He attacked Geoffrey's argument carefully and strategically. First, he argued for clear definitions in science and no ambiguity in language. Cuvier then proposed that composition was defined as the arrangement of parts. By this definition, to imagine that all organisms consisted of the same organs arranged in the same manner was illogical and false. Cuvier called Geoffrey's unity of composition more of a vague analogy for the composition of animals than true science. He emphasized how analogies did not belong in real science. Next Cuvier gave his own report on Meyranx and Laurencet's paper, showing example after example of how vertebrate and mollusk organ arrangement differed, whether by physical location or orientation in the body. By overwhelming the audience with his plethora of knowledge on cephalopod anatomy, he undercut Geoffrey's credibility and made a convincing argument of his own. After this point the debate became less about the mollusk data and more an argument between two differing scientific philosophies.

Further Discussion
On March 1 1830, Geoffrey returned with his rebuttal, "On the Theory of Analogues, to Establish Its Novelty as a Doctrine, and Its Practical Utility as an Instrument". In response to Cuvier's comments about unity of composition being poorly defined, Geoffrey claimed that he was seeking more "philosophical resemblances" other than actual, observable similarities between animals. This vague explanation of unity of composition and the claim that others did not understand what unity of composition really meant did not satisfy Cuvier or his other critics. Geoffrey went on to defend his analogical theory, stressing the methodology of it all to align it to the scientific method. His theory looked at the connections between animals, and therefore was still applicable to making discoveries in science. To illustrate his points, Geoffrey used the example of the hyoid bone in vertebrates. He compared multiple animals with differing numbers of pieces making up the hyoid bone. In the cat with 9 hyoid pieces and humans with 5, Geoffrey made hypotheses for where the extra pieces had gone in humans, suggesting shifts to the ligaments and other bones of the jaw. Cuvier in response compared the hyoid bones across multiple species, where he saw different numbers of parts, different arrangements of the parts and in some, no hyoid at all. To Cuvier these differences suggested different functional needs and did not support unity of composition as Geoffrey said. To counter Cuvier's very analytical approach, Geoffrey said his rival was simply getting too bogged down in the details and forgetting the main issue of differences in philosophy. Cuvier continued to supply examples of differences amongst animal form, insisting Geoffrey explain why nature would be constrained to using the same parts similarly across all species.

End of the Debate
By April 1830, the Academy was getting bored of the debate. At this point it had become far too personal and less about the ideas discussed but rather an continuous opportunity to bash each other publicly and academically. Geoffrey finally denied to provide further comment on April 5, 1830. His reasons for ending the debate are not entirely known, though it is generally believed that Cuvier won the debate with his commanding presence and overwhelming amounts of evidence. Geoffrey may have ended the debate to save himself from more public annihilation via Cuvier, but nonetheless promised to further publish the rest of his arguments later.

Results of the Debate
After Geoffrey's initial inflammatory report, some other scientists in the Academy felt pressed to pick a side. In an effort to protect his reputation, the co-author on the report, Latrielle, wrote to Cuvier to deny his participation in the report presented to the Academy, as well as disassociating himself from Geoffrey's unity of composition theory. This was likely a strategical move as Cuvier had just the year before helped Latrielle, a rather old man of sixty-seven, replace Lamarck as a professor in the Museum. Both authors of the original cephalopod paper wrote to Cuvier as well to apologize for the trouble their paper had caused. However, the damage on Meyranx and Laurencet's careers may already have been done, as no future works by the authors have been recorded, nor is their cephalopod paper to be found.

After the debate officially ended, both naturalists continued to throw in snide mentions to each other's works in Academy discussion, though neither Geoffrey of Cuvier openly engaged each other again. The press and scientific journals followed their volatile disagreements up until Cuvier's death by cholera a mere two years after the debate. While the two naturalists were unable to reconcile their ideas in life, Geoffrey spoke at Cuvier's funeral quite fondly of his former friend, feeling pleased "to have been the first to recognize and reveal to the learned world the scope of genius who did not yet know it himself", as well as saying anyone who studied the science of nature/natural history owed it to Cuvier for laying the foundation with his genius and massive knowledge of the natural world. While neither Geoffrey or Cuvier's ideas were fully adopted and the other ignored in future science theory, both unity of composition and functional morphology can be seen as influences to further works on the natural world.