Talk:Georges Cuvier

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Absolutely. Srnec 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Evolution

message: 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)
thread_title: Cuvier's principle?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Influences and Influenced in Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Two Errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific racialism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Uncited additions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Georges Cuvier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  But he was wrong though