charles_darwin

Primary Documents Relating to Darwin and Darwinism
Source: Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to
Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by Reference to
Causes Now in Operation (London: John Murray, 1830), I: 79–80.
127
Document 4: Lamarck on Classification
In the history of evolution, the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck is remembered best for his theories that were rejected by
scientists in favor of Darwin’s. The theories of spontaneous generation
and the inheritance of acquired characteristics are associated
with Lamarck. The first theory is an explanation of the way organic
life began and the second is an explanation of the way mutations are
passed on from parent to progeny. In fact, these theories are actually
Neo-Lamarckian: they are modifications of Lamarck’s theories made
by scientists in the late-nineteenth century.
If Lamarck’s explanation of the process of evolution was wrong,
his work on the classification of organic life was critical in the development
of the theory of evolution. Lamarck established some important
rules for zoologists and botanists to use in their attempts to
classify animal and plant life. In Zoological Philosophy (1794),
Lamarck argued that it was impossible to understand the relationships
between various plant or animal species without a proper
approach to classification and that errors in the thinking of botanists
and zoologists—on questions such as the immutability of the species—
occurred because these scientists did not classify correctly. (Darwin
made a similar argument in Chapter XIII of The Origin of Species,
‘‘Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary
Organs.’’) Taking the argument a stage further, Lamarck suggested
that, if the species were not fixed, they must evolve from the
simplest organisms to the most complex.
I have already observed that the true aim of a classification of
animals should not be merely the possession of a list of classes,
genera and species, but also the provision of the greatest facilities
for the study of nature and for obtaining a knowledge of her
procedure, methods and laws.
I do not hesitate to say, however, that our general classifications
of animals up to the present have been in the inverse
order from that followed by nature when bringing her living
productions successively into existence; thus, when we proceed
from the most complex to the simplest in the usual way, we
increase the difficulty of acquiring a knowledge of the progress
in complexity of organisation; and we also find it less easy to