Editing Georges Cuvier (section)

== Scientific work ==

=== Comparative anatomy and classification ===
[[File:Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation - pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l'anatomie comparée (1817) (14759503606).jpg|thumb|upright|Plate from ''Le Règne Animal'', 1817 edition]]
At the Paris Museum, Cuvier furthered his studies on the anatomical classification of animals.  He believed that classification should be based on how organs collectively function, a concept he called [[functional integration (neurobiology)|functional integration]].  Cuvier reinforced the idea of subordinating less vital body parts to more critical organ systems as part of anatomical classification. He included these ideas in his 1817 book, ''[[Le Règne Animal|The Animal Kingdom]]''.

In his anatomical studies, Cuvier believed function played a bigger role than form in the field of taxonomy.  His scientific beliefs rested in the idea of the principles of the correlation of parts and of the conditions of existence.  The former principle accounts for the connection between organ function and its practical use for an organism to survive.  The latter principle emphasizes the animal's physiological function in relation to its surrounding environment.  These findings were published in his scientific readings, including ''Leçons d'anatomie comparée'' (''Lessons on Comparative Anatomy'') between 1800 and 1805,{{efn|Cuvier was assisted by [[André Marie Constant Duméril|A. M. C. Duméril]] for the first two volumes and [[Georges Louis Duvernoy]] for the three later ones.}} and ''The Animal Kingdom'' in 1817.

Ultimately, Cuvier developed four embranchements, or branches, through which he classified animals based on his taxonomical and anatomical studies.  He later performed groundbreaking work in classifying animals in vertebrate and invertebrate groups by subdividing each category.  For instance, he proposed that the invertebrates could be segmented into three individual categories, including ''Mollusca'', ''Radiata'', and ''Articulata''.  He also articulated that species cannot move across these categories, a theory called [[transmutation of species|transmutation]].  He reasoned that organisms cannot acquire or change their physical traits over time and still retain optimal survival.  As a result, he often conflicted with Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theories of transmutation.
[[File:Cuvier-131-Machaon-Thaïs-Arjuna.jpg|thumb|upright|Plate from ''Le Règne Animal'', 1828 edition]]
In 1798, Cuvier published his first independent work, the ''Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux'', which was an abridgement of his course of lectures at the École du Pantheon and may be regarded as the foundation and first statement of his natural classification of the animal kingdom.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

=== Mollusks ===
Cuvier categorized snails, cockles, and cuttlefish into one category he called molluscs (''[[Mollusca]]''), an embranchment.  Though he noted how all three of these animals were outwardly different in terms of shell shape and diet, he saw a noticeable pattern pertaining to their overall physical appearance.

Cuvier began his intensive studies of molluscs during his time in [[Normandy]] – the first time he had ever seen the sea – and his papers on the so-called ''Mollusca'' began appearing as early as 1792.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Georges Cuvier, zoologist a study in the history of evolution theory.|author=Coleman, William|date=1964|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674283701|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=9|oclc=614625731}}</ref>  However, most of his memoirs on this branch were published in the ''Annales du museum'' between 1802 and 1815; they were subsequently collected as ''Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire et à l'anatomie des mollusques'', published in one volume at Paris in 1817.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

=== Fish ===
Cuvier's researches on [[fish]], begun in 1801, finally culminated in the publication of the ''Histoire naturelle des poissons'', which contained descriptions of 5,000 species of fishes, and was a joint production with [[Achille Valenciennes]]. Cuvier's work on this project extended over the years 1828–1831.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

=== Palaeontology and osteology ===
[[File:Cuvier-63-Coq de bruyère et Ganga cata.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Plate from ''Le Règne Animal'', 1828 edition]]
In palaeontology, Cuvier published a long list of memoirs, partly relating to the bones of extinct animals, and partly detailing the results of observations on the skeletons of living animals, specially examined with a view toward throwing light upon the structure and affinities of the fossil forms.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

Among living forms he published papers relating to the osteology of the ''[[Rhinoceros]] indicus'', the [[tapir]], ''[[Hyrax]] capensis'', the [[hippopotamus]], the [[sloth]]s, the [[manatee]], etc.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

He produced an even larger body of work on fossils, dealing with the extinct mammals of the [[Eocene]] beds of [[Montmartre]] and other localities near [[Paris]], such as the [[Buttes Chaumont]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=De Wever|first1=Patrick|last2=Baudin|first2=F.| last3=Pereira|first3=D.|last4=Cornée|first4=A.|last5=Egoroff|first5=G.|last6=Page|first6=K.|date=2010|title=The importance of geosites and heritage stones in cities—A review|journal=Geoheritage|volume=9|issue=4|pages=561–575|doi=10.1007/s12371-016-0210-3|hdl=10026.1/8308|s2cid=164769996|url=https://hal.science/hal-01437445/file/Page_The_importance_of.pdf |hdl-access=free}}</ref> the fossil species of [[hippopotamus]], ''[[Palaeotherium]]'', ''[[Anoplotherium]]'', a [[marsupial]] (which he called ''Didelphys gypsorum''), the ''[[Megalonyx]]'', the ''[[Megatherium]]'', the [[cave hyena|cave-hyena]], the [[pterodactylus|pterodactyl]], the extinct species of [[rhinoceros]], the [[cave bear]], the [[mastodon]], the extinct species of [[elephant]], [[fossil]] species of manatee and [[Pinniped|seals]], fossil forms of [[crocodile|crocodilians]], [[Turtle|chelonians]], fish, birds, etc.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}} If his identification of fossil animals was dependent upon comparison with the osteology of extant animals whose anatomy was poorly known, Cuvier would often publish a thorough documentation of the relevant extant species' anatomy before publishing his analyses of the fossil specimens.<ref>{{cite journal|last=RUDWICK|first=MARTIN|date=6 July 2010|title=Georges Cuvier's paper museum of fossil bones|journal=Archives of Natural History|volume=27|issue=1|pages=51–68|doi=10.3366/anh.2000.27.1.51}}</ref> The department of palaeontology dealing with the [[Mammal]]ia may be said to have been essentially created and established by Cuvier.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}}

The results of Cuvier's principal palaeontological and geological investigations ultimately were given to the world in the form of two separate works: ''Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles de quadrupèdes'' (Paris, 1812; later editions in 1821 and 1825); and ''Discours sur les revolutions de la surface du globe'' (Paris, 1825).{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}} In this latter work he expounded a scientific theory of [[Catastrophism]].

=== ''The Animal Kingdom'' (''Le Règne Animal'') ===
{{Main|Le Règne Animal}}
[[File:Cuvier-115-Aiguillat.jpg|thumb|Plate from ''Le Règne Animal'', 1828 edition]]

Cuvier's most admired work was his ''[[Le Règne Animal]]''. It appeared in four octavo volumes in 1817; a second edition in five volumes was brought out in 1829–1830. In this classic work, Cuvier presented the results of his life's research into the structure of living and fossil animals. With the exception of the section on [[insect]]s, in which he was assisted by his friend [[Pierre André Latreille|Latreille]], the whole of the work was his own.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=676}} It was translated into English many times, often with substantial notes and supplementary material updating the book in accordance with the expansion of knowledge.

=== Racial studies ===
Cuvier was a [[Protestant]] and a believer in [[monogenism]], who held that all men descended from the biblical Adam, although his position usually was confused as [[polygenist]]. Some writers who have studied his racial work have dubbed his position as "quasi-polygenist", and most of his racial studies have influenced [[scientific racism]]. Cuvier believed there were three distinct races: the [[Caucasian race|Caucasian]] (white), [[Mongoloid race|Mongolian]] (yellow), and the [[Ethiopia]]n (black). Cuvier claimed that [[Adam and Eve]] were Caucasian, the original race of mankind. The other two races originated from survivors escaping in different directions after a major [[Disaster|catastrophe]] hit the earth 5,000 years ago, with those survivors then living in complete isolation from each other.<ref name="Jackson">{{harvnb|Jackson|Weidman|2005|pp=41–42}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Kidd|2006|p=28}}</ref>

Cuvier categorized these divisions he identified into races according to his perception of the beauty or ugliness of their skulls and the quality of their civilizations. Cuvier's racial studies held the supposed features of [[polygenism]], namely fixity of species; limits on environmental influence; unchanging underlying type; anatomical and cranial measurement differences in races; and physical and mental differences between distinct races.<ref name="Jackson" />

==== Sarah Baartman ====
Alongside other French naturalists, Cuvier subjected [[Sarah Baartman]], a South African Khokhoi woman exhibited in European [[freak show]]s as the "Hottentot Venus", to examinations. At the time that Cuvier interacted with Baartman, Baartman's "existence was really quite miserable and extraordinarily poor. Sara was literally [sic] treated like an animal."<ref name="crais_scully">{{cite book|title=Sara Baartman and the Hottentot Venus: A ghost story and a biography|year=2009|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-13580-9|author=Clifton C. Crais|author2=Pamela Scully|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/sarabaartmanhott00crai}}</ref> In 1815, while Baartman was very ill, Cuvier commissioned a nude painting of her. She died shortly afterward, aged 26.<ref name=":young01">{{Cite journal|last=Young|first=Jean|date=1997|title=The Re-Objectification and Re-Commodification of Saartjie Baartman in Suzan-Lori Parks's Venus|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3042338|journal=African American Review|volume=31|issue=4|pages=699–708|doi=10.2307/3042338|jstor=3042338|issn=1062-4783}}</ref>

Following Baartman's death, Cuvier sought out and received permission to dissect her body, focusing on her genitalia, buttocks and skull shape. In his examination, Cuvier concluded that many of Baartman's features more closely resembled the anatomy of a monkey than a human.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Deviant Bodies: critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture|last=Terry|first=Jennifer|publisher=Bloomington: Indiana University Press|year=1995|isbn=0253209757|location=Bloomington, Indiana|pages=19–39}}</ref> Her remains were displayed in the [[Musée de l'Homme|Musée de l’Homme]] in Paris until 1970, then were put into storage.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Representation and Black Womanhood: The Legacy of Sarah Baartman|last=Gordon-Chipembere|first=Natasha|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|year=2011|isbn=978-1-349-29798-6|location=New York}}</ref> Her remains were returned to South Africa in 2002.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/09/international/remains-of-abused-south-african-woman-given-final-resting.html|title=Remains of Abused South African Woman Given Final Resting Place|agency=Reuters|date=9 August 2002|work=The New York Times|access-date=28 March 2019}}</ref>