Talk:Georges Cuvier

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KMBell95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Farner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

"l'ervir de l'histoire" ????--MWAK 3 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

That's of course servir, silly...It's amazing how often the mistake was mirrored! :o)--MWAK 5 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

Evolution

This article does not say anything about Cuvier's biological theories. When I accessed this page, I was looking for information about the relation between Cuvier's theory and Darwin's. (I vaguely believed that Cuvier and Lamarck were evolutionist biologists before Darwin and wanted to investigate this issue) --> I was very disappointed to read only about Cuvier's personal life

Cuvier didn't believe in evolution. He thought that animals were functional wholes, and would die if any part were to become modified. Smallweed 09:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I came looking for information on catastrophism. General biology texts typically describe catastrophism as one of Cuvier's primary contributions with catastrophe's wiping out local populations, and the areas being recolonized from surrounding unaffected areas. This is how his explanations of the changes in the fossil record are depicted. I also understand that Cuvier's description of the geologic record is a significant and still valid contribution. I have read none of his original work, and am not about to parrot a gen. bio. interpretation into the primary page, but I would welcome comments from those familiar with his work on the typical big-picture view of Cuvier's work. Do Catastrophism and geologic record belong on the page? Should the fossil record page credit Cuvier's contributions? The Wikipedia page on Catastrophism certainly links it to Cuvier; a reciprocal link would seem appropriate. My thoughts:) Cheers! (DMC jan 29 06)

You're very right about what's missing from this article. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to deal with it now (and would need to read a good biography to make sure I got it right), but this article needs a "Work" section after the life part.--ragesoss 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Srnec 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't addressed this in detail, but I have reordered the entire article, which was very much still the 1911 text, and showed some evidence of poor translation from French. If I can find good sources for further general discussion of his work I'll stick it in. Myopic Bookworm 17:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems a little odd that in the section on his opposition to evolution, his views like the that one fossil form could not become different forms are stated as 'fact'. Bias? Umma Kynes 06:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

fun to see "genius" being held by religion to stupidity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.215.218 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuvier's principle?

Strange that there is no mention of "Cuvier's principle": that the part is related to the whole, so that it may be possible to reconstruct an entire unknown animal from as little as one bone:

"Cuvier saw organisms as integrated wholes, in which each part's form and function were integrated into the entire body. No part could be modified without impairing this functional integration: ... the component parts of each must be so arranged as to render possible the whole living being, not only with regard to itself, but to its surrounding relations, and the analysis of these conditions frequently leads to general laws, as demonstrable as those which are derived from calculation or experiment." (Sorry, can't reference the quotes). Which, by the by, explains why C. was opposed to the notion of evolution.

You are correct, he did say that and it was the root of his opposition to evolution. Something else that is missing from this article is a discussion of the concept of extinction, which was one of his key early contributions to paleontology. As I recall he was the first person to state categorically that fossils were the remains of creatures, now extinct, fundamentally different from modern animals. I believe that later in his career he also observed that there had been a succession of different faunas represented in the fossil record (which was the root of his ideas about catestrophism)) with the more recent fossils becoming progressively more similar to existing animals. I am going to do some serious research and see if I can't add a little perspective to this article. It is very strong at listing his professional accomplishemnts but I think it could be a little better at summarizing why that work was so important. Rusty Cashman 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made some significant additions and edits to the article that I think cover all the comments on this page. I was also able to work in some facts such as the fact that Cuvier was the first to demonstrate that African and Indian elephants were different species, and his important work on megatherium. In general I think the article now does a better job of explaining what some of Cuvier's work was about rather than just listing publications. I also added a few nifty external links including a link to a translation of his Discourses.Rusty Cashman 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced in Infobox

Influences were Lamark and Buffon, to say nothing of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. In turn, Cuvier influenced many comparative anatomists, paleontologists, and geologists. Infobox is neat trick for this article. Scientific awards could be included in this infobox. --Wloveral (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure "influenced" makes much sense for a figure like Cuvier who influenced the entire scientific world, but one thing that doesn't seem to be in article at all is his work with Alexandre Brongniart on the geology of the Paris region which helped establish stratigraphy as a science. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Errors

1) Cuvier certainly held that extinction was a fact, but did not establish it, if by that is meant "Convinced most other scientists." For instance, he never convinced Lamarck.

Cuvier's work with fossil mammals is widely credited by historians of science with being the turning point in the scientific debate over extinction. It is true that it did not convince all other scientists and scientific literate people (besides Lamarck, Thomas Jefferson famously comes to mind), but by the mid 1820s there would be few hold outs. Lamarck is a special case because he looked at transmutation as an alternative to extinction, but that was a decidedly minority view. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

2) Nor was he really a proponent of catastrophism. He did hold that catastrophes had wiped out species, but he reject grand, speculative geological theories such as catastrophism proper -- he was cited in the interest of catastrophism by later English proponents of that theory.

GeneCallahan (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a mater of semantics. It is true as this article and the catastrophism article make clear, that Cuvier did not make the direct link between past geological catastrophes and religion that some of the English geologists that followed him did, but he strongly argued that extinctions shown by the fossil record were evidence of past geological catastrophes, and this is what most historians of science consider to be catastrophism.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment il s'appelait?

Can we get a reference for his name, please?

It's great to have his German birth name but it doesn't match the French cognate given on this page nor on the French wiki. These are the three different versions I've found:

né Johann Leopold Nicolaus Friedrich Kuefer German

Georges Léopold Chrétien Frédéric Dagobert Cuvier current English page

Georges Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric Dagobert Cuvier on the French page

So from the German original to the version on the French page we see translations of each component but also "Georges" added to the front and "Dagobert" added to the back. On the current English page, "Nicolas" is omitted and replaced with "Chrétien"; "Jean" is omitted altogether.

Can anyone please shed some light on this? I've found a reference for the "Chétien" and the "Dagobert" [1]. Nick (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A list of members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 1739-1915 (of which Cuvier was a foregin member), published in 1915 based on the Academy's files, uses the name form Georges Léopold Nicolas Frédéric Dagobert Cuvier, which you can then add as another possible name form. Tomas e (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The online Encyclopedia Britannica gives his full name as: "Georges-Léopold-Chrêtien-Frédéric-Dagobert, Baron Cuvier" (but I don't see why it should be hyphenated).

Nevertheless he was born as Johann Leopold Nicolaus Friedrich Kuefer.--MWAK (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific racialism

I just found these quotes by Georges Cuvier about scientific racialism:

Baron Georges Cuvier: "The Negro race... is marked by black complexion, crisped of woolly hair, compressed cranium and a flat nose, The projection of the lower parts of the face, and the thick lips, evidently approximate it to the monkey tribe: the hordes of which it consists have always remained in the most complete state of barbarism.... These races with depressed and compressed skulls are condemned to a never-ending inferiority... Her moves had something that reminded one of the monkey and her external genitalia recalled those of the orang-utang."

Baron Georges Cuvier: "The white race, with oval face, straight hair and nose, to which the civilised people of Europe belong and which appear to us the most beautiful of all, is also superior to others by its genius, courage and activity, (And that there is a) cruel law which seems to have condemned to an eternal inferiority the races of depressed and compressed skulls... and experience seems to confirm the theory that there is a relationship between the perfection of the spirit and the beauty of the face."

So Cuvier was a supporter of scientific racialism, he was trying to classify different races into different groups. Can a section of this be added to the article? 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A subsection on Cuviers work on human anatomy that included his ideas on race would certainly be appropriate. It would be helpful to the editors if you cited a source for the quotes you provided. This could provide a starting place for research. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Uncited additions

I am unclear why uncited additions to this article are being insisted upon. Nothing should be mentioned in the lead that is not in the text, and Da Vinci, not even relevant to the article, is suddenly appearing in the lead without a reference. What good reason is there for mentioning this here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I understood your point. Reliable sources are available for that, but there also several sources further down on the article. If you want, you could them.--115ash^→(☏) 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, da Vinci is not mentioned in the text anywhere in the body of the article, nor (I suggest) need he be. I'll remove him now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If they appear to be something that could be substantiated at a later time by another editor, it's entirely reasonable to add the removed content to this talk page under a dedicated section. In that manner, it won't be entirely lost in the history of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Georges Cuvier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160104165921/http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k88103v to http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k88103v

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed from external links as no working archived captures. Site is only searchable via user request targeted search strings, therefore Wayback can't capture any individual searches. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire

Clearly the name Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was misspelled as Geoffrey (instead of Geoffroy) a number of times, which I found confusing. The title of the source (by Toby Appel) was also misspelled. I corrected this article, and also Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and moved Cuvier–Geoffroy debate. See the book (with the correct spelling of Geoffroy's name) here: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:0195041380 Mark in wiki (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But he was wrong though

The article makes him seem as a still highly respected scientist on evolution, even though he denied it. Scientific American says:

"In the first half of the 19th century, the French naturalist Georges Cuvier developed his theory of catastrophes. Accordingly, fossils show that animal and plant species are destroyed time and again by deluges and other natural cataclysms, and that new species evolve only after that.

One of the sharpest critics of Cuvier's theory of cataclysms was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 to 1829), who was convinced that all living things had originated from simple organisms, and were therefore related to each other."

Why is there so little about him rejecting evolution and favouring deluge/etc. theories? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)