Genos and Eidos in Aristotle’s Biology D. M. Balme The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 12, No. L. May, 1962), pp. 81-98. Stable URL: fttpflinksjstor.orgsici?sici=0009-8388°%28 196205%202%3 A 123A 1%3C81%3 A GAEIAB%3E2.0.COR3B2-0 The Classical Quarterly is currently published by The Classical Association. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at flip: feworwjtor org/aboutterms.htmal. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in par, that unless you fave obtained pcior permission, you may not dowaload an cnt isus of @ journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial uss. Please contact the publisher cegarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bhupsferwer,jstor.orp/jounals/classical hel. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission. ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org- hup:thrwwjstor orgy Wed Mar § 14:10:42 2006TENOZ AND EI40Z IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY Ir is not certain when or by whom yévos and efor were fist technically dis- tinguished as gens and species. The distinction does not appear in Plato's extant, ‘writings, whereas Aristotle seems to take it for granted in the Topiss, which is sumually regarded as among his earliest treatises. In his dialogues Plato socms able to use yéios, eos, téd3, ulpos interchangeably to denote any group oF vision in a diairesis, including the geoup that is to be divided.’ As Ritter iowed, it is possible to see an increasing preference for yéws in the late dialogues, where diairesis is in full use, as compared with the Republic and Phasérus, vos, asa ‘kind? composed of related members, would be a natural chaice far 2 class-word; itis indeed ready to mean the genus which is divisible {nto related species, But the restriction of «Sos to mean species would be, is Plato, an unexpected development. Species is necessarily subordinate, implying fa genus above it; moreover itis the group-concept neazer to particulars and therefore—for Plato—farther from certainty and reality. Tt seems improbable that, ifhe had wished to confine one word to the lower status, he would have chosen «l80¢ with al its tremendons associations. [fhe did so distinguish pesos and effos,itean only have been in the unwritten practice of the Academy. But those who have taken this view have had to rely mainly on the duptoas Apuaroréaus 64-65,° which is weak evidence. These two sections are given only in the Codex Marcianus version, not even in the version that Diog. Lacrt. says Aristotle attributed to Placa (D.L. 9. 80); & 64 contains the reference to ipyehae which Rose pointed to as one of the marks of a Christian editor! the statements about qévor and efor in §§ 64-65 are commonplaces of Aristotle and his Greek commentators, and could have been extracted from these soarces, While itis Ukely that parts of the diaicéauis Apeororddous descend from ‘Academic origins only the thinnest chain of probability could connect any articular statement or terminalogy with Plato himself. That Plato's use of animal examples in the Poltiaus came from an extended interest in biological classification, has been inferred from the Epierates fagment * but this men tions only the separating of plants inta érp, and not only is there no use of the sword eios but there is no suggestion of hierarchical or systematic classification, ‘which could have made rich material for a comedian. Such classification may develop in two stages, which give rise respectively to the relative and the absolute distinction herween genus and species, The relax tive use is seem at Arist. Phys. 22721114: el 8" Zoruydz6? d eal yéon dpa wal ely dorio, ed Emory elbos wiv imobiiews, yévos 82 rOv dmormuay.... Here the classification provides a pattern as an aid in analysis, without implying that these concepts are permanently classified thus in relation to other concepts 4 Ritzer, Niue Untrcuhungen, pp. 290 $ Fe. a87 (K.) ef] Alanis 1. Usener, © Hambruch, Logucte Regie 4 pat Sele, Preuss. Jord. 10843, Wilatwowite, Piel Pe ali cites Arist Met oggtag but A. i Unlr. a3; Stenael, Stud, oq. Ba thing his own terminology there. Herter Plate! Akad, 1952, 9.24- CE Dias, Bll Prdapign > 678. Plat, Pa. Gude), p. wy and the more Gi Mutschiane, Diviioas Arid, pp. cautious view of Jager, Dinter a. Kars, wie P788 D. M, BALME ‘The absolute use, oa the other hand, does imply a permanent and more com= prehensive scheme; this enables analogies to be drawn between one set of sgroups and another, and therefore has more significance for science, Thus we say that Dog isa species but Cat isa genus, referring to a scheme which gives those groups a precise status in the animal kingdom, ‘This use can be seen at Arist. de Sensu 44413-17 and G.A. 7f4bar. If Plato had wanted to make the distinction, either absolutely or relatively, he could have dane so by restrieting «lice to two of the senses that he alveady used, namely (i) a grouping of ppartienlars, and simmitaneously (ii) a division ofa larger group : both senses can beseen, not simultaneously but separately, at Soph. 219 a and d—reysiv reasv «4337 Bt (two forms among, the plurality of réyoa:), and eryrues 3:0 f3y (two formas into which xrgrucf is divisible). But he would hardly have wanted to make it untes he were developing classification in some degree. Te is much debated whether he intended diairess for this purpase or not. ‘The fact that he id not find it necessary to create a verhal distinction hetween gers and species is perhaps a straw on the side of thase who hold that he did not use diairesis for systematic classification. Mareover, if it is right to think that he was lat- terly more concerned with the inter-relations between Forms than with the relations hetween Forms and phenomena, then a hierarchy of genera and species might not be che best conceptual framework for him but might even create difficulties. ‘These considerations probably do not apply to Speusippus, who not only abandoned the theory of Forms but held that definitions can only be made a part of a comprehensive classifcation.? Yet the positive evidence that he distinguished és from eos is hardly better than in Plato's case. Stenzel, already believing in Platonic clasificaton, and following Lang, relies on fe. and 16(L) Fr. 8(L,) : Athen, g, 105 b Zredourzos 8 & f" ‘Ouotuw magambyond gnaw elvan Taiv uadanoarpanen xépafor, daraxde, xiubye, Zpxrov, xapxivoy, dyoupoo, O(L.}: Athen. 7. 318 ein 3° dori modumiaw DeBeliy, sodenodion, PoNBiriin, Sepsis, cis Aptorordins leropeé xal Daascurnes, With these compare fe. o{L,) : Photius, Lexie. sv. myuiov Zw Guotoy xawuras +4671 82 wubnurros eldds dort, Dreiounos ov 76 nav 'Opccor}ron dots Bre revlon, duels, xeon) In addition, the list of titles attributed to him by Diog. Laert. includes epi ‘veut wai ei€cy, This is all that can be called direct evidence to it must be added the fair probability that Aristotle's eriticistas of af yeypapuioas Biapdoess and of bxoropotvres in P.A. 1. 2-3, where yéior and elbos Seem to mean gents and species, were aimed at Speusippus. Yet Aristotle's evidence cannot be pressed over terminology, 2s is known from the way he reports other philo- sophers; and in any case it would be possible to ake yévos and efdue in these Passages as meaning nothing more technieal than ‘kind’ and form. The same * Cb Asis. Ma, sogorag 10054243 Chere eter images than the ail ee gested miss, 4s Crit. of Plate, p. 46, Riddle of the by Acts yéon dx' dina. eet Fol deneny, pp 40, 54, bat see Res, sandy In dred Pe, 384 193 Cher= Bless Thy of idee, pe agn on depares gydag Imenal hiatehen, Gara ded re" Stone ft Speuippos, 640, 153 Pin’ Th Rrowlege,9.72) 304 Skemp's Lang, De Sp, dead, ripe ee Hachored nap {Otte Sta p94) oreTENOE AND £140 IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 3 applies to D.1.'s attribution: if there was such a tite, it stil need mean ao ‘more than ‘On kinds and forms’ as Plato used the terms. It is doubtful, how- ver, whether Diogenes’ evidence suoutd be accepted, since there arc neither ragments nor testimionia for this book, and he attributes the same title to enoceates with equally litte ta show for it! Photius’ excerpt (fe. 10) does not urilbute the word «(os ta Speusippus, and his actual quotation fails to support his interpretation, since eypiaw is not shown as 2 species of xeiowys but both are shown together with guns in alist: comparison with the other fragments shows that this means that they form a group of Guowa. No generic or class name is suggested, and in fact che two clasies named in fs. Band 16 (juxhaxdorpaa and -toliinodes) are the only ones that Lang could find. The word etos occurs only in fr. 16, and here Athenaeus claims to be quoting both Speusippus and Aristotle! but Aristotle does not speak of «iS rounddaw but of yéin.* In the “other feagments Speusippus regularly says that animals are. noua, rapa, éudepf. The only other class-word to be found is supos, fr. 7 (also from ‘Ataenaeus). The Bpicrates fragment uses only zoe. Therefore the positive ‘evidence that Speusippus distinguished yévos and eles in the technical sense cares really to nothing. [¢ may well be that he was attempting a comprehen= sive ‘natural’ elastfication by grouping together similar animals and pants, and by arranging the grougs dichotomously in sets, and that he called the groups indifferently by the same class-wards that Plato used, including Buaiseces for 2 complete set; but there is no evidence that he went. farther and dis- tinguished genus from species, or that he even reached the point where this istinction Becomes usefi ‘There seems therefore to be no satisfactory evidence that anybody ather than Aristotle originated this verbal distinction. It appears unmistakably in many passages of the Organon (especially Top. 4 and 6) and Metaplysics, and oce casionally in other works. Tn the same treatises the words sometimes seem also to be used without this technical sense, and to be interchangeable.4‘That the same words should have sometimes a tecltnical and sometimes a non-technical use, is not necessarily significant, But. some passages, such as Met, 105@ha6- 099814, exhibit both uses in a single discussion, in such a way as to cause con- fosion if the whole is read together. Here we may perhaps sce one part written before Aristotle began to use the distinction, and another part added. after- wards Tn the Topics eos as species tends to he applied to the subject of discussion * As such, itis a group-concept whose members are formally indistinguishable for the purposesaf the discussion. Tn order to define it, its yéeor must be ascertained. So és, although it too has unity of concept, is essentially divisible into dif- ferent etby;? eibos is treated as indivisible, and is essentially a member of a © Dik 4.2 39, enacrates would prob} Ch Bonita, fade 15141240, ably have meant the nontechnical ene, ab # CE ee tog86a6, 38 (Ross, ro78%5, ‘ed in bis aps Cou 849, gigs de Pace Gy24, 445 (i, rie ei dopa aby Top, 10118, 0 a t06ht 427 Ha saa, 509%, G4atI5; BAL tapha9, 109 a casita At'g. ggyf (= Amst fr a(R.) 4 Rom ad ron8ha8, Cl. Long, Vi. 46582-6, gayeta) Athonacos saya even. more pres ALA. 4opigera (bath diwsiad felow) Giely Apwarorcigs not reuepin wis doe 4 cline went rem definiendam, Wait a 4s ylig, din Babee vy and names the c4sPat, same five that A. gies at HA. gyi; but 7 waoede plus afBy ral Top, 193450} Me these nouepand py (Pe 1973 Bont he Shi 356a D. M. BALME ‘ylvos, Ina full analysis» hierarchy of yy dx" mda may be disclosed, while in the ather direction the efor may be found to be itself divisible inta different forms: then what was eds in relation to the higher graup becomes the pos of the lower groups,” and so on until a truly indivisible form is reached, and this is then the drapov oF relevravoy elfor whose members are particular individuals distinguished only by differences of #y.? ‘As 2 method of analysis this contains nothing that cannot be found in Plato, except the distinction between yévos and eZios. But this very distinetion, which might have served fittle purpose for Plato, becomes important for those who find reality in the 748e rs. Genus and species then differ in epistemological status, and tend to be used not relatively hut absolutely. The inffma species is abstracted immediately from sense-pereeption, whereas all clases abave it are abstracted from abstractions. In Aristotle's theory of substance the form that is actualized in the individaai's matter is that of the érowov efbos, while the suc cessive ranks af genera are successively remote stages of potentiality which can only exist when the infima species ig actualized. If the male sperma fails to inform the femaie matter fully, the offspring may not rexemble its parents but ‘oniy their genus, and this is a step on the way towards the monstrosity: the ‘pac is G@dv 71 but-no more And by a similar argument Aristatle explains that the mule, which cannot resemble both horse and ass, resembles only theie cammon éypirera yéios and is unnatural and defective, rapa. dim, dvdmqpos ‘The stock example in the logical works of yérocmeéoe is or éofpurvos, and the real significance ofthe distinction between genus and species lies not in its relative use at all levels, but in its absolute use at the level af the infirna species ‘One would have expected Aristotle co use this distinetion above all in biology, where itis most evident thatthe final differentia expresses the essence” so that the immediate object of science must be species rather than genus, But the surprising fact is that he makes least ase of tin this field. It does not accu in the explanations of family resemblances and répara, nor of the maule, just ‘quoted ; there the distinction is benween the universal (both {Gav and dsfpoos) and the particular (Socrates); he speaks of yécs and xalslow as opposed to iow, wad Zeaarov, and in the only paragraph where «iar oceurs itis inter- changed with pévos.# [t is true that Pd, 1 apparently distinguishes yévos, Suapopd, «Bos in the same way as che Topizr does. Bot P.A. tis book apart: it is not 20 much biology as 2 philosophical discussion of biotogy. Its usage is markedly different from that of the works in. which Aristotle actually practises biology. There, in the strictly biological works, aithough it bas been traditional to interpret yévos and elas as genus and species in many pasiages, examination, shows that there are only a few in which the technical sense is abligatory ; in a few more it is possible but not demanded, while in others it even causes con- fasion (as D’Arcy Thompson pointed ont) and in some its imposible. Now in the case of the logical works the reader has a clear choice on each occasion between the technical and the nanetechnical senses: both have been established Top. rostan, Ce. tat; Bonita, fad. eveen Plato and A. (Qu Levu Bie bel eps Poids 1941, pp. ia, at) depends upon Pye, 207 lente adr with dr ela 2 an, Pats tg, 795-6; Mat, vongin. 7 Met. 40981g-263 Po 844 1G Ag 5 Cet Toho) 8 GAL aphaa 7487. (AC T70hE7, T2895 8 Met 109095 GA 2 8 Bee means the foreal came opposed eo The contrast thae Ni, Hagemann draws Hin)TENOE AND EI4OZ IN ARISTOTLE’ BIOLOGY 8s in practice, and, where the technical sease is required, iis required because the context distinguishes certain concepts in the way in which genus aad species are distinguished, and these examples can he pointed to in the text. Th the biology, however, there is na such framework of reference. The traditional terpretation assumed that Aristotle did actually clasify animals into genera and species, but this assumption is not supported by the evidence." Fe accepts as data the animal hinds (yérm) that are presented co him by common par- ance, but does not try to group ther further by finding similarities as Speusip- ‘pus appears co have dane. Such kinds are: feos, wat, wr). a very few wider ‘Broups such as rd eAdyy, ri Mdoupa; and certain general groupings (para ‘p4e7)? which comprise most—but not alt—animals, namely dons, iy, roi, terh. The extant treatises examine the common and peculiar characteristics of these yén, their functions, their reproduction, but net their taxonaray ; more- lover there is no classification scheme in the background, and all attempts to construct one for Aristotle have failed.? Consequently the question i8 nat so much why Aristode usually fils to biology: itis eather, how does the distinetion come to be there at all, in the few cases where it does appear? Tn the zoological works excluding P.. 1° the occurrences ofthe two words are, so far as T have observed: vier | Goumend casi) | ative | Cece ex sen) Bary | 207 a) 3) parg | "ey Gh ‘3 & fe 4. 7 ob 6 fe) Ga. a ca) 2 @ Pari tas | 13 © 3 fo) #3 aA, 6 oe) Ofthe 413 instances of yévos, 275 are applied to a named type of animal (eg. -xeos fama}, 79 10 aninnals in general (e.g, woAkd yéin Leen), a5 to other kinds ‘of thing (c.g, yéos guraw, d8drra»), and the remaining 44 mean ‘kind in the abstract, including sometimes the sease of genus as opposed to species. That is to say, in 354 cases yévor denates a kind of animal. On the other hand, of the 96 insiances of elbor only 2g denote kinds of animal. ‘Thus yévor is far the ccammoner word far a kind of animai, thougi it is of course by no means the ‘ase that Aristotle is concerned with genera rather than with species. He uses ‘40s indifferently for the type that is visible in nature and for all groupings af such types, Bonitz is mistaken in applying the usage of the Topi (where sravrds evans eibn hela, 123290) to the biology, and inferring that yévos is never used of the infima species.* For not only is every vitible type called a _yéves, but ifit has substypes these are jm too. Thus dog is a yévos 65829, and 80 are the breeds of dog, meta yéim wndv 5949165 similarly 78 ylvos 75 ra Aedran 570% and yéon Aederaw Blo Oagh33 compare Body 78207 with 666%, « Bor details se my paper “Aa Use of Thintands, om which sony paper, Joc. cit Ditfeentiae in Zoology’, coneib. to ond Lethe iy Poh aed fe dey and Symp. Arist Louvain, 1660), Para Na gsghit-agboga sd qghig aoh00 SHA. 4geh7 gosPas. Nat a schnical (de Sora, dag. Vie, anal fom Jot cd erm: ch Pad. 6x26, HA. 4gdh8 ply of Rp bt 4 and A. 1 can be ignated ending S34°13 799 & realyes for dis purpee. Meu xamiasdon in Meyer, ari, 1 Arie Sl 9855 Tudor 150%.86 D. M. BALME 64g; rerxipon 6828, 25 with 556985 wapun 925293 with 445 xapkiien Thid. rodundBauv Gaaieg with 525944; Spear 5tC2t4 with 15, 50gbT0; acady fc 453i*31 with Pro; wody 676%3t, 77123 with 58145; eyo 5862, 6Bybi4 with 590%}4, 660815, yd is the word for the different types of Saovedbu 50746, oye 528424, ropdpdn 5474, ethan 54824, andy 54832, pov 95026, ANulvbum 55029, dBapde 557% derdv 5055, 61818, lepdnan 5645, 20°23, Bedglown 50612, wearpcew 569°C7, deudiGr Goghan, Bpeonaarrdw 61427, Kor. ‘ifs 617°, nodousv 61748, xopublen 61720, dchayrne 62298, dayton Ibid, deoyrlar pladupin 62305, ogmetr 62793, mdrnudn Hydpar Gala, Dod 6g0*12. Each of these subdivisions is clearly the type visible in nature, ie. the final differentiation known to Aristotle, what would now be called the species ‘or variety, and what would in the Organon and Metapiysice be called the dropoy elBos. Of the gf instances of hs, only 1 are applied ko named types of anima, and a further 11 to animals in general; 4 refer co other things («Boe range 49028, 78:34; dome 53690; ordias 674423, cf. 50729), and the remaining. Bear aa abstract sense and occur largely in oblique cass (e.g. eibe Safcpt) Of these 68 abstract instances, 16 (all in G.A,} mean the formal cause, and many others have & general sense of ‘form’, ‘appearance’, even ‘nature’; but there are some that seem to demand the sense of ‘species’, and these will be dise cussed below. ‘Talking frst the 13 references to named animaltypes, we ind that 5 of them cefer to types that ace also called yéry, sa that the technical distinction i prex sumably excluded : HLA, sag rerriyea ein ch 95644 rerrlpen per, 535°8 rerntpun 26 yéane. HA. 95724 d el86s come ABaincv Badarrian; cL. 55744 fore 88 yévas #Bexad. B.A. B17P16 wodouie edn zpia} ch 61718 AMo ys xohoutv. PLA, 680%15 Srrew 32 mhedouu yeu, ob yp ty e805 rin éyiven mévruw dort; ch HA. 590%4 pion wheter doe, 24-7 Ba Bio ply, Be pees. GA. 9 Bat ris neyrraselbos rBéone oxtidnpos sf. 229%6 yor 7 ones ja. ‘Three refer ta sub-types, such as have been sean above co be most commonly called don: aby yond 5927, alpBakdv 592°C8, wxyhan 6178, Tn one ease only do Zoos and ellos appear to be distinguished : H.A. 50988 73 rv Adeuiray 88 yéoos néguSpén dorw. ruyyéve 8 aizdy Sura Slo ein. In view af the overwhelming evidence of the other cases, it seems clear that «iB ‘rust be non-technical here, and is used to mean ‘forms’, mainly for literary variety. ‘The remaining four cases refer to mare abstract geovepings than the visible sacurat forms! HA, 48624 lB whales iy ual dprtduay. This occurs in a context where the distinction between genus and species seems to be really intended. It is dise cussed below PLA. GyQh15 fore 82 pr wal by zohba ze dorpaxabdepa. No further sug- gestion is made of a distinction between pévoe and eifos among testaceans, and the word «(Boe does not again occur in connexion with them except in the not technical use with éxivec quoted above (680515). Cf. HA. 5282 25 raw éxioum ‘pos, 53034 6. yhin waales diet, Eda Bo pbc, dAdo eves 528%94-06 Key year don Bea, 11 ye. The use of both words tagether here may show that theyENOL AND BI4OZ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY % have not completely lost their basic difference of meaning? ie. yévos is the genetic ‘kind’, «fos is the morphological ‘orm. Pu. 689826 ore 5d yévy pido dorapa ri wdyior” ain (se. ra yodancorpdasut) J rosiraw 8° dxdarow rhetosef8q cari. The same applies to this passage as t0 679815 above. e@ns is not again used in connexion with crustaceans, except once in. the abstract sense of ‘shape': HA. 525510 Erepne pions yunpde gv Sanep of napus, 733° eibos Suovov rots daraxois. yévos is the word used other- wise for all groups of padaxcerpana: cf. 52594 yoy zal napiBar Kai wap +a 1b pump yor. GA. N19°7 dyhoripun pertyew ri elBGw (50. Lyordna rat goéwa). The ovo-viviparous selachians and vipers have some of the characteristics of each roup. «iSog bears a general sense of ‘class. ‘The above evidence shows that, wherever itis possible to test the denotations of yénos and eiBor by reference (0 actual animals, Aristotle's usage makes no taxonomic distinction between them. yéior means a ‘kind? at any level from the most abstract group to the immediately visible type. «tis is far less com= ‘monly used, and represents no group that yéios does not also represent. Ifthey differ in meaning, the difference is not chat of higher and lower rungs on the same ladder. They belong to different ladders, and the original difference sometimes shows through, yévos being a statement abont kinship and los a statement about shape or form.! There remains, however, a number of passages in these biological works in which edios is used with a more general reference ia opposition to és, ad in some of these the sense of ‘species? appears obligatory. In the following pages [offer an examination of all passages that appear to be at teast capable of Dearing this sense (these include the r general references to animals, and some of the 68 abstract instances, referred to above). HA. ©, (86°16 raid 3 7a uty eBiee rv joplaw dort, aloo 13 bain Bs wl Baddeley fo wat Sad, B.. six airév 88 pénor wat 19 tnmou nat ray iMdaw Uesr, doa 75 cles rabid Adyower «+ a "78 86 rad ev eo 122 Buaddpet 88 wall inepoyiy wal Meu, Cau 78 yes Zork 24 radrdy. Ayu 82 yéves olor Soda wal itr cove pap 14 tedreney xe Benois ward rd pévor, wat Eovan ely Hela 25 yf wai dpa ty... tna 88 sav tba 1B ote ets rd ndpua raed ec obre nal Smepoyiy wa Ee 1g Aewfr, 2244 war” dvahoyiav, alow wérovlien Sorade mpas d= 20 wavy kai... rp6s 2 reply Renée 8 yap de dpm nrepde, zoir0 cy fyi doxt Rens 48890 radra 8° Zari rain wa Erepa 31 ward rods epudeoue pou, nar” «Box H x00" Seep 491418 ris elonedvas Beapopds, ees wal Smapoxd wal dvadoyi These three passages together with 4g7bro-r2 (sce below) distinguish. the levels of comparison ina way thats found in P.A. r, and occasionally in logical 1s alo perhaps in Plato's diaivese: ef Dis, lat, Pol, px exisaa D. M, BALME, usage, but nat elsewhere in the biology. There are three levels: between in- dividuals, between species, and between genera. The language of these passages is over-condensed and confusing, but from. other teferences! it is clear that AListotle means the following Geta b =the inctivic) Gaba Selemre | __aferent individual in one species side: Sanfipesra feet species in one gems ene | at in ‘pee Balparra Boop taee } —different genera {asodoyle aadéporra —incomparables} Since biology is not concemed with individuals, there are in effect only two standards of comparison, namely between species (éncpays} and between genera (duahoyia). Hence the expression at 48130 is to0 condensed: raird nai Frepn does not apply sinplister to each ofthe three fevels mentioned, but wor” clos goes only with rep, xa9” Srepoxty toes with hoth radrd and Zrepa, and fear” Hoadopday goes only with ralrd. At 49t%18 the statement is further con= lensed and has become actually incorrect, for Sugopds cannot apply to Arvin at all? At 4970 the theory is correcily stated, but corns in the same senteice with an incompatible usage of yéses and «Bor, 8 will he seen. Now the terms deotoyia aad Smepor (often called 70 jARo» wal freoe) are used throughout the biology, but they arc nat distinguished in eis way. For example, bath dcloyor and rd wadiey wai Frrov are applied together to the consparizons between man and other animals at H.A, 588-2528 ; dsanvof is called dudhoyew to the use of oda at HLA. 589bt8 (also at PA. 1. 5, 645-6) alehough this campation is made within the yéos Bde within a species, rmale sperma is called dvdloyor to female warojfvin, G.A. 727433 davoie and xonipés ace dstdoyon at PLA, 59096 (Ch. HL.A, 507) butler rg wader ead freer Be Gg5+92; darts is duddapon to decade according to the theory at 486°1G, Yet this comparison occurs within both the yévor ZySdau and the peeos rerpandion dborduas, HLA. 516814-22: dvaloyta is applied to the differences of hardness in the bones of neti Uordua, FLA. 516%4, although this type of comparison is istinguished from dveloyla. and clasied as imepoy at PA. ¢. O4gett and coreespondingly at AL. 1.40645 f. In practice dvahopla is meat often used to compare fecyua With deasua, a difference that is wider than the wéjora yen, ‘while 75 2Ao» wa frrov is sed promiscously.* The reason foe this s thatthe distinction between gents and species is not drawn in practice, and hence the ‘theoretical distinction between dowicyia and Snepoys, which is made to depend ‘spon je i 486416, ee, isnot and cannot be apnlied tis equally inapplicable to the hierarchical type of clasification chat is often envisaged in the logic. Te could only apply were there are just the two levels of division, 2 genus and its merber-specis, of which the distinetion can be uted absolutely. Thus ie could apply ta the simple classification Zpa— * Top. soa, Ane Pas. gino, Met. + CE Mushene, De Vas dontopia Sgnfece ro1Gy, 10819, Pls asa, 240% Pal, tan, ee, Groningen, 1943), Be 4Se Gaepa Sy4%i6, 4sha6. CE Borie, Arie Ck Mayes, drtte Thad, Pp. 35-44 ‘Sta iv 36TENOZ AND EIdOZ IN ARISTOTLE’ BIOLOGY cy Soucornipak (Top. 107%23) but not to any longer ladder of yéry du" aMya, stich as would result if intermediate groups were inserted in chat classification. Still less could ic apply to Aristotle's flexible or indeterminate grouping of ‘many animals. Further, it sets the genus-species distinction at the level of dpots wai ifs. ‘This isa very simple degree of classification. Itis used in the discussion at P.A. 1. ag, but does not appear elsewhere in biology exeept in the two statements about jdyeara in that are discussed helow (4907 and $058%6). Tt is also rare in the logic (e.g. dn. Post. 9744, Top. c07%29) there, ifan example of genus species is wanted, che commonest is {40-d:ouor; but in practice a more ‘laborate hierarchy is used, of which the biological counterpart would he a more advanced degree of classification chan this. “Thess passages in FLA, therefore, are strangely out of key. The concepts of dvehopfa and repays proved useful to Aristatle, and led to the modern con= cept of homology : but they would have been useless ifted artificially to genus and species, as they are tied here but nowhere else, Seen against Aristotle's practice in biology, these statements are too doctvinaire, Yet if they are com- ‘pared with his logic, with which they seem more akin, they are tao primitive. “This incongruity, coupled with their curious incorreciness, suggests that they ‘are not integral parts of the biology. HAL. 40%) yéry 8% plore raw iu, el & Bufprren rR 8 EGa, rd8" Corie, dv wiv dpelBui, Ev 8" IB, dAdo 88 9 majrous, mafia jv af advra doayid dor. do Be yévos 10 dari 73 iv darpaxaBdpuum, 3 xacéran Gorpeas: Ea 78 ve 11 paaxoorpdneay, duiias 2 dart, olor wipeBloc wal 12 yém rw waives wad davandy- 2980 73 re padaxicor, 13 olay resdibes re wai reGBo wat oxlarZrepon 73 Gr eirduent. 18... rv 88 dour Lunn odxén rd yom peta of pap nepidyse 17 todAé et be los, dM 7d dy dorw delat and ode 18 for Biagopar 73 cibos, afov doOpurros, 74 8° dyer ner 19 AR dowivoa vt etd 31 708 88 yévous rol niu rerpamBBuv [aor wat Corda ey 32 nde dort aad, dua 5¢- AMG Kal” éxaaroe airy 433 cis einetr, wep dibpeomos eipyrat, Maw, Hagos, Exr0s, 94 wey wat Aide rotrov zay pdx, Inet Cor fy 70 yé008 xa 491*1 ea 7083 Logesipoce xadoujns,ofaw Erne wadding uh Spt 2... xal rats dv Zopéa xaooncvausvusvoss, 3 af wahederas jyfove 8t' Suovéryra, ode aboas dtc 73 ard eldos. “The whole passage is very troublesome, and Aristotle seers to jugele with the terms yévos and effos,” Thompson. “Thisis one of the only two discussions of néyuora yémy (the other is at 5056, see below). Té comes towards the end of the introductory section of Hd, (2. 1-6], in which Aristotle has explained that the treatise concems the Hkenestes and differences between animals, and has analysed these Sadopal generally under certain main headings, according to which the treatise sll be arranged. Now finally he says that there are certain main groups! into which animals fall, implying that he will take the animals by these groups, as in fart he does, * jyora: not ighes” but argent a wectia som:"vary extensive’ su a horizontal division. So Thamp-se D. M, BALME, IL animals fall into main groups; o, i they do, their groups are not all ecognized (4906-19). In lines 19-30 he diseusses she. connexions between four-foatednes:, viviparousness or oviparousness, hair ot scales, and concludes that :here are two further main groups namely viviparous and aviparous quadrapeds, but that no more grouping can bedone by com- binations of these factors. Then comes |. gr where he says that the group of viviparous quadrupeds contains unnamed «By He has therefore made two chief points: (1) chat these péptara yévy do not inchide all animals (far the two reagons given in IL c6-1g) ; (2) that the 7év0s terpandBov Lyoréicoy includes eq dveivyya. The difficulty in the passage con- cera the meanings of «lbas and davnyuos tis Rest clear that elias is not heing used absolutely: of vip wepalyewothd lb fy eos (16). Thompson suggests that yéves and eibes are used as relative terms here, but even this does not solve the dificulty, since é eios represents ‘yb seydde (16) while maAé eZy is on the same level as én mapuivio (13). ‘Hence pévos and elfos are being used interchangeably, “kind? and ‘form. ‘Thompson also notes that repiéye i technical, and compares de Gadlo gratia and Phys. 20781, where elBor repeéxee Skyy. But pertiaps a better com- parison lies in the logic where classes embrace classes: Top. 12145 mepulyee 73 Grabaty yéios ... 70 losnén repulyer.. . Bowe? rip, Erav &veibos tn’ Ba ym <8 Frepou tnd a Erdpou nepdycatian «140° § der ry ooefvtar weputyee 1 14gtt9 mepudyoucw BAe. « rbyabln vip thr repibgee 144819 10) “remexoudons ye mepéyovroe «al. (CF. PLA, 1. 644414, 5.) This sage seems Colbe Platonic ef, Soph. a50 by 253 4, Parm. ¢9@ a, by £45 by 151 a, bs Beaded is also technical here in the manner of the Tofizs rather than in the looser sense ‘of ‘difference’ that is cammon in H.: This technical use too may derive from Plato: cf. Tieset. 208 cf, Polit. b, and the Academic Defnitiones 414 4, 426 “This passage, then, is concerned with an elementary degree of classification, and uses terminology familiar from the Topice and from Academic usage. But it does not consistently distinguish éior and eos. It becomes manageable if shese words are translated not ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but “kind?” and. ‘form’ dudujos. What, then, are the clin devon at ine 32? In order to preseeve the sense ‘species’ here, Schneider altered Scaliger’stearslaion fron ‘nomine arent’ to ‘uno aliquo communi nomine carent’ understanding bt dagpare with ditoyua, 2nd compared Aristotle's statement that the dazpaxdBepua are called darpea while the paaxserpaxa have no single name (ll. 19-11 above). In taking didrvuos to mean doi doduars dodvuyos, Schneider is surely on. good ground: ef. 4go%1g, bt (above), 6295, P.A. 64215, de An. 419%, But T can find no parallel to his translation “lacking a commam name’, meaning that things ‘which have single names of their own lack a name shated jointly with each coher (unless 1.4. 505°30 has this sense: but see below). All the other instances cited by Waitz ad ht, 1086 and by Boniez, Index 6qh2~06, have the straight- forward meaning ‘nameless, ue. the object referred to has no dnp (cf. nt, 16P6 i deoyn j 78 divisor). "The same is true ofthe follawing instances which they do not cite: 49215, sana, gous, 14 5t5P10, 552bgr, Pad. G6gha, {62gé24. When Aristotle means that a common name. is lacking he says, a8 at 6ahg, duciropor 8 xowd5 ch Huds 59123, Phys. 226%90, 32, Pel. 1275890. At An, Post. 74220 Sid. 76 13) eloae Gvopacgudvoy 24 wdvra raiza do, the subject is ‘rdvra radra and divoyadietv 7 is complement with 29; ef. ibid. 8 dsinonor * Rellowing Cams, and flowed by Them: so Waite ad 10%PRNOZ AND EL40¥ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY ot fri Suggs efx mean (18 dcirepr). At ggabre it Is mot the wdpagon teat play Roprdvww wre that are devinyuor ért doduars, but the wadoxoorpdxay {vos the reason is that an adjective is not an dvoqa even when used ‘sub- stantivally’, unless i¢ has really become a noun ef 4gaetg (v8 ard a rd Bepydercpa . ..) ducrona bi duduars, 629% ylvos nro érduan Ov diane Sucagon Sou enpiowaud, PLA. 25 dninapon lay 29 Eeagov xa 76 Goan 28 daarboy yap toirun ob wetrat 20 Sqia, and B6ghr0, de An. 417832, 41807. ‘At agit 7a Adgoupa can count as a named yéos (if this passage is genuine in spite of the contradiction at Mfc 103¢81) Because it has hecome @ noun: L.S,J. quote it only in the neuter phural and give no instance ofits use as an adjective; therefore it differs from the adjectives which Aristotle calls dvivenn (CE Gor*ty for adjectival padaxsarpasos and darpaxéSeques). Te may be also that a descriptive phrase or periphrasis is not a narae: cf, above examples, and Met. 109695 73 wre dyablv wire xaxdy dndvyuor, EN. opPt, 75 30. ‘This ‘would explain why the ais@rrjaar of touch is dixiupov at 489%18: itcan only be-expressed by the phrase aif # dooyou (unless Aristotle here refers to his ‘more accurate doctrine that the ale®yr#puo» is not the flesh but 7 derés"). Th iin doxdvygin means ein that have no duduara, # cannot refer t0 Noms Aagos, «1A. Ttmust refer to groups that contain these types and are themselves contained within rezpiraSa ordva. What, for example, is the name of the ‘group that contains the lion? We have one (‘Cat’), but Aristotle has not. All that he has at this level is ra Adfoupa, and the rest are nameless, He must have intended to apply it to bialogy, for it is incredible that he should have abandoned systematics in the very Reld where it has proved most fruitfal, and proved so for the very reasons that he himself pre- dicted in An Post. B'r3-14. In that ease his biological work is incomplete. This is indeed selRevident: whatis missing isa straight descriptive roology. together with the classification system that 2 descriptive zoology needs if only for orderliness. The H.4, does not primarily describe animals but the likenesses and differences between them jas such, it must be a preliminary study, Tfone asks to what it isthe preliminary, a likely answer will be that an analysis of differentiae is necessary to any descriptive ology, but itis necessary above all to systematics. “The passages that use the gentis-species distinction all occur in introductory sections of #4. The genera! intzoduction extends fear the beginning ta 49:26 and thus includes the first three {? four) passages. 49749 comes in the introduse- tion to the exterual parts of animals, while 505226 #s in the introduction to the internal parts of animals (and 308, if iehas to be considered at all, comes in the chapter introducing the whole section on yeeéaes, books 5-7). Introdue- tions are naturally written last, and it may be that in preparing the treatise for school use Aristotle—or an editor—wished 1 give it fs proper systematic Inasis, connecting, it with the doctrines of logic. He may have written these passages then, but petiiaps more probably he incorporated older notes: this might account for their somewhat elementary and doctrinaire character. However that may be, they seem (o represent an intention that was never fulfilled. Queen Mary College, Londen D. M, Base, 2 Of, Schneider ad Theaphrs HEP. 6. toa. Lasiue te mia hes Ap. 7 A. phil 480 Tventure to difer from le Blend, dete br 59, note 3