|
From Jefferson:
<But neither is this [occasional erroneous classification] so important
a consideration as that of uniting all nations under one language in Natural
History. This had been happily effected by Linnaeus, and can scarcely be hoped for a second time.
Nothing indeed is so desperate as to make all mankind agree in giving up a
language they possess, for one which they have to learn.>
and
<[A]dhere to the Linnean because it is sufficient as a ground-work,
admits of supplementary insertions as new productions are discovered, and mainly
because it has got into so general use that it will not be easy to displace it,
and still less to find another which shall have the same singular fortune of
obtaining the general consent. During the attempt we shall become unintelligible
to one another, and science will be really retarded by efforts to advance it
made by its most favorite sons.
...
And the higher the character of the authors recommending it, and the more
excellent what they offer, the greater the danger of producing schism.>
and:
<Linnaeus' method was liable
to this objection so far as it required the aid of anatomical dissection, as of
the heart, for instance, to ascertain the place of any animal, or of a chemical
process for that of a mineral substance. It would certainly be better to adopt
as much as possible such exterior and visible characteristics as every traveller
is competent to observe, to ascertain and to relate.>
Inarguable insights from a rational perspective
considerate of human nature.
Oh, and for those concentrating on the continuity
from one form to another:
<This classification was indeed liable to the imperfection of bringing
into the same group individuals which, though resembling in the characteristics
adopted by the author for his classification, yet have strong marks of
dissimilitude in other respects. But to this objection every mode of
classification must be liable, because the plan of creation is inscrutable to
our limited faculties. Nature has not arranged her productions on a single and
direct line. They branch at every step, and in every direction, and he who
attempts to reduce them into departments, is left to do it by the lines of his
own fancy.>
I had drafted a note using the color spectrum analogy to explain that there
are primary colors and shadings from one color to another whose assignment to
one color or another is the subject of informative and productive
debate. The primary colors, however, are not obscured, just as the
difference between lizards and birds is apparent.
Jefferson said it better, so I'll let him answer.
Thanks for the reference!
|