Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

AMPHIBIA

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V01, Page 883 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

AMPHIBIA , a zoological See also:

term originally employed by See also:Linnaeus to denote a class of the See also:Animal See also:Kingdom comprising crocodiles, lizards and salamanders, See also:snakes and Caeciliae, tortoises and turtles and frogs; to which, in the later See also:editions of the SystemaNaturae he added some See also:groups of fishes. In the Tableau Elementaire, published in 1795, See also:Cuvier adopts Linnaeus's term in its earlier sense, but uses the See also:French word " See also:Reptiles," already brought into use by See also:Brisson, as the See also:equivalent of Amphibia. In addition Cuvier accepts the Linnaean subdivisions of Amphibia-Reptilia for the tortoises, lizards (including crocodiles), salamanders and frogs; and Amphibia-Serpentes for the snakes, apodal lizards and Caeciliae. In 1799' See also:Alexandre See also:Brongniart pointed out the wide See also:differences which See also:separate the frogs and salamanders (which he terms See also:Batrachia) from the other reptiles; and in 1804 P. A. See also:Latreille,2 rightly estimating the value of these differences, though he was not an See also:original worker in the See also:field of vertebrate See also:zoology, proposed to separate Brongniart's Batrachia from the class of Reptilia proper, as a See also:group of equal value, for which he retained the Linnaean name of Amphibia. Cuvier went no further than Brongniart, and, in the Regne Animal, he dropped the term Amphibia, and substituted Reptilia for it. J. F. Meckel,3 on the other See also:hand, while equally accepting Brongniart's See also:classification, retained the term Amphibia in its earlier Linnaean sense; and his example has been generally followed by See also:German writers, as, for instance, by H. Stannius, in that remarkable See also:monument of accurate and extensive See also:research, the Handbuch der Zootomie (2nd ed., 1856). In 1816, de Blairsville,' adopting Latreille's view, divided the Linnaean Amphibia into Squamiferes and Nudipelliferes, or Amphibiens; though he offered an alternative arrangement, in which the class Reptiles is preserved and divided into two sub-classes, the Ornithoides and the Ichthyoides.

The latter are Brongniart's Batrachia, plus the Caeciliae, whose true See also:

affinities had, in the meanwhile, been shown by A. M. C. Dumeril; and, in this arrangement, the name Amphibiens is restricted to See also:Proteus and See also:Siren. B. Merrem's Pholidota and Batrachia (182o), F. S. Leuckart's Monopnoa and Dipnoa (1821), J. See also:Miller's Squamata and Nuda (1832), are merely new names for de See also:Blainville's Ornithoides and Ichthyoides, though See also:Muller gave far better anatomical characters of the two groups than had previously been put forward. More- 1 Brongniart's Essai d'une classification naturelle See also:des reptiles was not published in full till 1803. It appears in the See also:volume of the Mimoires presentes a I'Inslitut See also:par See also:divers savans for 1805. 2 Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, See also:xxiv., cited in Latreille's Families naturelles du regne animal.

5 See also:

System der vergleichenden Anatomie (1821). ' " Prodrome d'une Nouvelle See also:Distribution du Regne Animal," Bulletin des sciences par la Societe Philomalique de See also:Paris (1816), p.113. See also:AMPHIBOLE 8 8 3 over, following the indications already given by K. E. von See also:Baer in 1828,5 Muller calls the See also:attention of naturalists to the important fact, that while all the Squamata possess an amnion and an allantois, these structures are absent in the embryos of all the Nuda. An See also:appeal made by Muller for observations on the development of the Caeciliae, and of those Amphibia which retain gills or gill-clefts throughout See also:life, has unfortunately yielded no fruits. In 1825 P. A. Latreille6 published a new classification of the See also:Vertebrata, which are primarily divided into Haematherma, containing the three classes of Mammifera, See also:Monotremata and Aves; and Ilaemacryma, also containing three classes—Reptilia, Amphibia and See also:Pisces. This See also:division of the Vertebrata into hot and See also:cold blooded is a curiously See also:retrograde step, only intelligible when we reflect that the excellent entomologist had no real comprehension of vertebrate See also:morphology; but he makes some See also:atonement for the blunder by steadily upholding the class distinctness of the Amphibia. In this he was followed by Dr J. E. See also:Gray; but Dumeril and Bibron in their See also:great See also:work,' and Dr See also:Gunther in his See also:Catalogue, in substance, adopted Brongniart's arrangement, the Batrachia being simply one of the four orders of the class Reptilia.

See also:

Huxley adopted Latreille's view of the distinctness of the Amphibia, as a class of the Vertebrata, co-See also:ordinate with the See also:Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia and Pisces; and the same arrangement was accepted by See also:Gegenbaur and See also:Haeckel. In the Hunterian lectures delivered at the Royal See also:College of Surgeons in 1863, Huxley divided the Vertebrata into Mammals, Sauroids and Ichthyoids, the latter division containing the Amphibia and Pisces. Subsequently he proposed the names of See also:Sauropsida and Ichthyopsida for the Sauroids and Ichthyoids respectively. See also:Sir See also:Richard See also:Owen, in his work on The See also:Anatomy of Vertebrates, followed Latreille in dividing the Vertebrata into Haematotlzerma and Haematocrya, and adopted Leuckart's term of Dipnoa for the Amphibia. T. H. Huxley, in the ninth edition of this See also:Encyclopaedia, treated of Brongniart's Batrachia, under the designation Amphibia, but this use of the word has not been generally accepted. (See BATRACHIA.) (T. H. H.; P. C.

End of Article: AMPHIBIA

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
AMPHIARAUS 		[next]
AMPHIBOLE

Site © 2006 - Net Industries