naturalists had detected other divisions among animals, called families.
Lamarck, who had been a distinguished botanist before he began his study
of the animal kingdom, brought to his zoölogical researches his previous
methods of investigation. Families in the vegetable kingdom had long been
distinguished by French botanists; and one cannot examine the groups they
call by this name, without perceiving, that, though they bring them
together and describe them according to other characters, they have been
unconsciously led to unite them from the general similarity of their port
and bearing. Take, for instance, the families of Pines, Oaks, Beeches,
Maples, etc., and you feel at once, that, besides the common characters
given in the technical descriptions of these trees, there is also a
general resemblance among them that would naturally lead us to associate
them together, even if we knew nothing of the other features of their
structure. By an instinctive recognition of this family likeness between
plants, botanists have been led to seek for structural characters on which
to unite them, and the groups so founded generally correspond with the
combinations suggested by their appearance.

By a like process Lamarck combined animals into families. His method was
adopted by French naturalists generally, and found favor especially with
Cuvier, who was particularly successful in limiting families among
animals, and in naming them happily, generally selecting names expressive
of the features on which the groups were founded, or borrowing them from
familiar animals. Much, indeed, depends upon the pleasant sound and the
significance of a name; for an idea reaches the mind more easily when well
expressed, and Cuvier's names were both simple and significant. His
descriptions are also remarkable for their graphic precision,--giving all
that is essential, omitting all that is merely accessory. He has given us
the key-note to his progress in his own expressive language:--