french zoologist who founded the sciences of paleontology and comparative anatomy

Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric, Baron Cuvier (French: [kyvje]; 23 August 1769 – 13 May 1832), known as Georges Cuvier, was a French naturalist and zoologist, sometimes referred to as the "father of paleontology".[1] Cuvier was a major figure in natural sciences research in the early 19th century and was instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils.

Georges Cuvier

Cuvier's work is considered the foundation of vertebrate paleontology, and he expanded Linnaean taxonomy by grouping classes into phyla and incorporating both fossils and living species into the classification.[2] Cuvier is also known for establishing extinction as a factâ€”at the time, extinction was considered by many of Cuvier's contemporaries to be merely controversial speculation. In his Essay on the Theory of the Earth (1813) Cuvier was interpreted to have proposed that new species were created after periodic catastrophic floods. In this way, Cuvier became the most influential proponent of catastrophism in geology in the early 19th century.[3] His study of the strata of the Paris basin with Alexandre Brongniart established the basic principles of biostratigraphy.

Among his other accomplishments, Cuvier established that elephant-like bones found in the USA belonged to an extinct animal he later would name as a mastodon, and that a large skeleton dug up in Paraguay was of Megatherium, a giant, prehistoric ground sloth. He named the pterosaur Pterodactylus, described (but did not discover or name) the aquatic reptile Mosasaurus, and was one of the first people to suggest the earth had been dominated by reptiles, rather than mammals, in prehistoric times.

Cuvier is also remembered for strongly opposing theories of evolution, which at the time (before Darwin's theory) were mainly proposed by Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Cuvier believed there was no evidence for evolution, but rather evidence for cyclical creations and destructions of life forms by global extinction events such as deluges. In 1830, Cuvier and Geoffroy engaged in a famous debate, which is said to exemplify the two major deviations in biological thinking at the time – whether animal structure was due to function or (evolutionary) morphology.[4] Cuvier supported function and rejected Lamarck's thinking.

His most famous work is Le Règne Animal (1817; English: The Animal Kingdom). In 1819, he was created a peer for life in honor of his scientific contributions.[5] Thereafter, he was known as Baron Cuvier. He died in Paris during an epidemic of cholera. Some of Cuvier's most influential followers were Louis Agassiz on the continent and in the United States, and Richard Owen in Britain. His name is one of the 72 names inscribed on the Eiffel Tower.

Cuvier was born in Montbéliard, France (in department of Doubs), where his Protestant ancestors had lived since the time of the Reformation.[6] His father, Jean George Cuvier, was a lieutenant in the Swiss Guards and a bourgeois of the town of Montbéliard; his mother was Anne Clémence Chatel.[7] At the time, the town, which was annexed to France on 10 October 1793, belonged to the Duchy of Württemberg. His mother, who was much younger than his father, tutored him diligently throughout his early years, so he easily surpassed the other children at school.[6] During his gymnasium years, he had little trouble acquiring Latin and Greek, and was always at the head of his class in mathematics, history, and geography.[8] According to Lee,[8] "The history of mankind was, from the earliest period of his life, a subject of the most indefatigable application; and long lists of sovereigns, princes, and the driest chronological facts, once arranged in his memory, were never forgotten."

At the age of 10, soon after entering the gymnasium, he encountered a copy of Conrad Gessner's Historiae Animalium, the work that first sparked his interest in natural history. He then began frequent visits to the home of a relation, where he could borrow volumes of the Comte de Buffon's massive Histoire Naturelle. All of these he read and reread, retaining so much of the information, that by the age of 12, "he was as familiar with quadrupeds and birds as a first-rate naturalist."[8] He remained at the gymnasium for four years.

Cuvier spent an additional four years at the Caroline Academy in Stuttgart, where he excelled in all of his coursework. Although he knew no German on his arrival, after only nine months of study, he managed to win the school prize for that language. Upon graduation, he had no money on which to live as he awaited appointment to an academic office. So in July 1788, he took a job at Fiquainville chateau in Normandy as tutor to the only son of the Comte d'Héricy, a Protestant noble. There, during the early 1790s, he began his comparisons of fossils with extant forms. Cuvier regularly attended meetings held at the nearby town of Valmont for the discussion of agricultural topics. There, he became acquainted with Henri Alexandre Tessier (1741–1837), who had assumed a false identity. Previously, he had been a physician and well-known agronomist, who had fled the Terror in Paris. After hearing Tessier speak on agricultural matters, Cuvier recognized him as the author of certain articles on agriculture in the Encyclopédie Méthodique and addressed him as M. Tessier.

Tessier replied in dismay, "I am known, then, and consequently lost."—"Lost!" replied M. Cuvier, "no; you are henceforth the object of our most anxious care."[10] They soon became intimate and Tessier introduced Cuvier to his colleagues in Paris—"I have just found a pearl in the dunghill of Normandy", he wrote his friend Antoine-Augustin Parmentier.[11] As a result, Cuvier entered into correspondence with several leading naturalists of the day, and was invited to Paris. Arriving in the spring of 1795, at the age of 26, he soon became the assistant of Jean-Claude Mertrud (1728–1802), who had been appointed to the newly created chair of comparative anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes.[12]

The Institut de France was founded in the same year, and he was elected a member of its Academy of Sciences. On 4 April 1796 he began to lecture at the École Centrale du Pantheon and, at the opening of the National Institute in April, he read his first paleontological paper, which subsequently was published in 1800 under the title Mémoires sur les espèces d'éléphants vivants et fossiles. In this paper, he analyzed skeletal remains of Indian and African elephants, as well as mammoth fossils, and a fossil skeleton known at that time as the 'Ohio animal'.

Cuvier's analysis established, for the first time, the fact that African and Indian elephants were different species and that mammoths were not the same species as either African or Indian elephants, so must be extinct. He further stated that the 'Ohio animal' represented a distinct and extinct species that was even more different from living elephants than mammoths were. Years later, in 1806, he would return to the 'Ohio animal' in another paper and give it the name, "mastodon".

In his second paper in 1796, he described and analyzed a large skeleton found in Paraguay, which he would name Megatherium. He concluded this skeleton represented yet another extinct animal and, by comparing its skull with living species of tree-dwelling sloths, that it was a kind of ground-dwelling giant sloth.

Together, these two 1796 papers were a seminal or landmark event, becoming a turning point in the history of paleontology, and in the development of comparative anatomy, as well. They also greatly enhanced Cuvier's personal reputation and they essentially ended what had been a long-running debate about the reality of extinction.

In 1799, he succeeded Daubenton as professor of natural history in the Collège de France. In 1802, he became titular professor at the Jardin des Plantes; and in the same year, he was appointed commissary of the institute to accompany the inspectors general of public instruction. In this latter capacity, he visited the south of France, but in the early part of 1803, he was chosen permanent secretary of the department of physical sciences of the Academy, and he consequently abandoned the earlier appointment and returned to Paris. In 1806, he became a foreign member of the Royal Society, and in 1812, a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In 1812 he became a correspondent for the Royal Institute of the Netherlands, and became member in 1827.[13] Cuvier was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1822.[14]

Cuvier then devoted himself more especially to three lines of inquiry: (i) the structure and classification of the Mollusca; (ii) the comparative anatomy and systematic arrangement of the fishes; (iii) fossil mammals and reptiles and, secondarily, the osteology of living forms belonging to the same groups.

In 1812, Cuvier made what the cryptozoologist Bernard Heuvelmans called his "Rash dictum": he remarked that it was unlikely that any large animal remained undiscovered. Ten years after his death, the word "dinosaur" would be coined by Richard Owen in 1842.

During his lifetime, Cuvier served as an imperial councilor under Napoleon, president of the Council of Public Instruction and chancellor of the university under the restored Bourbons, Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour, a Peer of France, Minister of the Interior, and president of the Council of State under Louis Philippe. He was eminent in all these capacities, and yet the dignity given by such high administrative positions was as nothing compared to his leadership in natural science.[15]

Cuvier was by birth, education, and conviction a devout Lutheran,[16] and remained Protestant throughout his life while regularly attending church services. Despite this, he regarded his personal faith as a private matter; he evidently identified himself with his confessional minority group when he supervised governmental educational programs for Protestants. He also was very active in founding the Parisian Biblical Society in 1818, where he later served as a vice president.[17] From 1822 until his death in 1832, Cuvier was Grand Master of the Protestant Faculties of Theology of the French University.[18]

Cuvier was critical of theories of evolution, including those proposed by his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another. He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Because of this and his understanding of animal anatomy and physiology, Cuvier strongly objected to any notion of evolution. According to the University of California Museum of Paleontology, "Cuvier did not believe in organic evolution, for any change in an organism's anatomy would have rendered it unable to survive. He studied the mummified cats and ibises that Geoffroy had brought back from Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and showed they were no different from their living counterparts; Cuvier used this to support his claim that life forms did not evolve over time."[19]

He also observed that Napoleon's expedition to Egypt had retrieved animals mummified thousands of years previously that seemed no different from their modern counterparts.[20] "Certainly", Cuvier wrote, "one cannot detect any greater difference between these creatures and those we see, than between the human mummies and the skeletons of present-day men."[21]

Lamarck dismissed this conclusion, arguing that evolution happened much too slowly to be observed over just a few thousand years. Cuvier, however, in turn criticized how Lamarck and other naturalists conveniently introduced hundreds of thousands of years "with a stroke of a pen" to uphold their theory. Instead, he argued that one may judge what a long time would produce only by multiplying what a lesser time produces. Since a lesser time produced no organic changes, neither, he argued, would a much longer time.[22] Moreover, his commitment to the principle of the correlation of parts caused him to doubt that any mechanism could ever gradually modify any part of an animal in isolation from all the other parts (in the way Lamarck proposed), without rendering the animal unable to survive.[23] In his Ã‰loge de M. de Lamarck (Praise for M. de Lamarck),[24][25] Cuvier wrote that Lamarck's theory of evolution

rested on two arbitrary suppositions; the one, that it is the seminal vapor which organizes the embryo; the other, that efforts and desires may engender organs. A system established on such foundations may amuse the imagination of a poet; a metaphysician may derive from it an entirely new series of systems; but it cannot for a moment bear the examination of anyone who has dissected a hand, a viscus, or even a feather.[24]

Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction. Cuvier attempted to explain this paleontological phenomenon he envisioned (which would be readdressed more than a century later by "punctuated equilibrium") and to harmonize it with the Bible. He attributed the different time periods he was aware of as intervals between major catastrophes, the last of which is found in Genesis.[26][27]

Cuvier's claim that new fossil forms appear abruptly in the geological record and then continue without alteration in overlying strata was used by later critics of evolution to support creationism,[28] to whom the abruptness seemed consistent with special divine creation (although Cuvier's finding that different types made their paleontological debuts in different geological strata clearly did not). The lack of change was consistent with the supposed sacred immutability of "species", but, again, the idea of extinction, of which Cuvier was the great proponent, obviously was not.

Many writers have unjustly accused Cuvier of obstinately maintaining that fossil human beings could never be found. In his Essay on the Theory of the Earth, he did say, "no human bones have yet been found among fossil remains", but he made it clear exactly what he meant: "When I assert that human bones have not been hitherto found among extraneous fossils, I must be understood to speak of fossils, or petrifactions, properly so called".[29] Petrified bones, which have had time to mineralize and turn to stone, are typically far older than bones found to that date. Cuvier's point was that all human bones found that he knew of, were of relatively recent age because they had not been petrified and had been found only in superficial strata.[30] He was not dogmatic in this claim, however; when new evidence came to light, he included in a later edition an appendix describing a skeleton that he freely admitted was an "instance of a fossil human petrifaction".[31]

The harshness of his criticism and the strength of his reputation, however, continued to discourage naturalists from speculating about the gradual transmutation of species, until Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species more than two decades after Cuvier's death.[32]

Like most of the scientific beliefs of Cuvier’s day, the idea that extinction didn’t exist was derived not only from scientific authority but also from religious authority as well. Religious authorities’ logic was that God wouldn’t wipe out his own creations, as doing so would be counterproductive to maintaining the connections between all forms of life on Earth, from the ocean to the earth and to the sky.

In 1795, Georges Cuvier did some of his anatomical studies on animals at the National Museum in Paris. There, he embarked on a groundbreaking quest to disprove the idea that extinction was impossible. Using his knowledge of the anatomy of animals, he was able to recreate the entire bodily structures of extinct animals. According to some legends, Cuvier could accomplish this feat even with a couple of bone pieces.

At the time Cuvier presented his 1796 paper on living and fossil elephants, it was still widely believed that no species of animal had ever become extinct. Authorities such as Buffon had claimed that fossils found in Europe of animals such as the woolly rhinoceros and the mammoth were remains of animals still living in the tropics (i.e. rhinoceros and elephants), which had shifted out of Europe and Asia as the earth became cooler.

Thereafter, Cuvier performed a pioneering research study on some elephant fossils excavated around Paris. The bones he studied, however, were remarkably different from the bones of elephants currently thriving in India and Africa. This discovery led Cuvier to denounce the idea that fossils came from those that are currently living. The idea that these bones belonged to elephants living - but hiding - somewhere on Earth seemed ridiculous to Cuvier because it would be nearly impossible to miss them due to their enormous size. He later performed more research studies on fossils of large animals and came to the same conclusion that the fossils simply didnâ€™t match any living today. Ultimately, his findings drove Cuvier to the proposition that the abrupt changes the Earth underwent over a long period of time caused some species to go extinct.

Cuvier’s theory on extinction has met opposition from other notable natural scientists like Darwin and Charles Lyell. Unlike Cuvier, they didn’t believe that extinction was a sudden process; they believed that like the Earth, animals collectively undergo gradual change as a species. This differed widely from Cuvier’s theory, which seemed to propose that animal extinction was catastrophic.

However, Cuvierâ€™s theory of extinction is still justified in the case of mass extinctions that occurred in the last 600 million years, when approximately half of all living species went completely extinct within a short geological span of two million years, due in part by volcanic eruptions, asteroids, and rapid fluctuations in sea level. At this time, new species rose and others fell, precipitating the arrival of human beings.

Cuvier's early work demonstrated conclusively that extinction was indeed a credible natural global process.[33] Cuvier's thinking on extinctions was influenced by his extensive readings in Greek and Latin literature; he gathered every ancient report known in his day relating to discoveries of petrified bones of remarkable size in the Mediterranean region.[34]

Influence on Cuvier's theory of extinction was his collection of specimens from the New World, many of them obtained from Native Americans. He also maintained an archive of Native American observations, legends, and interpretations of immense fossilized skeletal remains, sent to him by informants and friends in the Americas. He was impressed that most of the Native American accounts identified the enormous bones, teeth, and tusks as animals of the deep past that had been destroyed by catastrophe.[35]

Cuvier came to believe that most, if not all, the animal fossils he examined were remains of species that had become extinct. Near the end of his 1796 paper on living and fossil elephants, he said:

Contrary to many natural scientistsâ€™ beliefs at the time, Cuvier believed that animal extinction was not a product of anthropogenic causes. Instead, he proposed that humans were around long enough to indirectly maintain the fossilized records of ancient Earth. He also attempted to verify the water catastrophe by analyzing records of various cultural backgrounds. Though he found many accounts of the water catastrophe unclear, he did believe that such an event occurred at the brink of human history nonetheless.

This led Cuvier to become an active proponent of the geological school of thought called catastrophism, which maintained that many of the geological features of the earth and the history of life could be explained by catastrophic events that had caused the extinction of many species of animals. Over the course of his career, Cuvier came to believe there had not been a single catastrophe, but several, resulting in a succession of different faunas. He wrote about these ideas many times, in particular he discussed them in great detail in the preliminary discourse (an introduction) to a collection of his papers, Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupÃ¨des (Researches on quadruped fossil bones), on quadruped fossils published in 1812.

Cuvier’s own explanation for such a catastrophic event is derived from two different sources, including those from Jean-André Deluc and Déodat de Dolomieu. The former proposed that the continents existing ten millennia ago collapsed, allowing the ocean floors to rise higher than the continental plates and become the continents that now exist today. The latter proposed that a massive tsunami hit the globe, leading to mass extinction. Whatever the case was, he believed that the deluge happened quite recently in human history. In fact, he believed that Earth’s existence was limited and not as extended as many natural scientists, like Lamarck, believed it to be.

Much of the evidence he used to support his catastrophist theories have been taken from his fossil records. He strongly suggested that the fossils he found were evidence of the world’s first reptiles, followed chronologically by mammals and humans. Cuvier didn’t wish to delve much into the causation of all the extinction and introduction of new animal species but rather focused on the sequential aspects of animal history on Earth. In a way, his chronological dating of Earth history somewhat reflected Lamarck’s transformationist theories.

Cuvier also worked alongside Alexandre Brongniart in analyzing the Parisian rock cycle. Using stratigraphical methods, they were both able to extrapolate key information regarding Earth history from studying these rocks. These rocks contained remnants of molluscs, bones of mammals, and shells. From these findings, Cuvier and Brongniart concluded that many environmental changes occurred in quick catastrophes, though Earth itself was often placid for extended periods of time in between sudden disturbances.

The 'Preliminary Discourse' became very well known and, unauthorized translations were made into English, German, and Italian (and in the case of those in English, not entirely accurately). In 1826, Cuvier would publish a revised version under the name, Discours sur les rÃ©volutions de la surface du globe (Discourse on the upheavals of the surface of the globe).[36]

After Cuvier's death, the catastrophic school of geological thought lost ground to uniformitarianism, as championed by Charles Lyell and others, which claimed that the geological features of the earth were best explained by currently observable forces, such as erosion and volcanism, acting gradually over an extended period of time. The increasing interest in the topic of mass extinction starting in the late twentieth century, however, has led to a resurgence of interest among historians of science and other scholars in this aspect of Cuvier's work.[37]

Cuvier collaborated for several years with Alexandre Brongniart, an instructor at the Paris mining school, to produce a monograph on the geology of the region around Paris. They published a preliminary version in 1808 and the final version was published in 1811.

In this monograph they identified characteristic fossils of different rock layers that they used to analyze the geological column, the ordered layers of sedimentary rock, of the Paris basin. They concluded that the layers had been laid down over an extended period during which there clearly had been faunal succession and that the area had been submerged under sea water at times and at other times under fresh water. Along with William Smith's work during the same period on a geological map of England, which also used characteristic fossils and the principle of faunal succession to correlate layers of sedimentary rock, the monograph helped establish the scientific discipline of stratigraphy. It was a major development in the history of paleontology and the history of geology.[38]

In 1800 and working only from a drawing, Cuvier was the first to correctly identify in print, a fossil found in Bavaria as a small flying reptile,[39] which he named the Ptero-Dactyle in 1809,[40] (later Latinized as Pterodactylus antiquus)â€”the first known member of the diverse order of pterosaurs. In 1808 Cuvier identified a fossil found in Maastricht as a giant marine lizard, the first known mosasaur.

Cuvier speculated correctly that there had been a time when reptiles rather than mammals had been the dominant fauna.[41] This speculation was confirmed over the two decades following his death by a series of spectacular finds, mostly by English geologists and fossil collectors such as Mary Anning, William Conybeare, William Buckland, and Gideon Mantell, who found and described the first ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and dinosaurs.

In a 1798 paper on the fossil remains of an animal found in some plaster quarries near Paris, Cuvier states what is known as the principle of the correlation of parts. He writes:[42]

This idea is referred to as Cuvier's principle of correlation of parts, which states that all organs in an animal's body are deeply interdependent. Species' existence relies on the way in which these organs interact. For example, a species whose digestive tract is best suited to digesting flesh but whose body is best suited to foraging for plants cannot survive. Thus in all species, the functional significance of each body part must be correlated to the others, else the species cannot sustain itself.[43]

Cuvier believed that the power of his principle came in part from its ability to aid in the reconstruction of fossils. In most cases, fossils of quadrupeds were not found as complete, assembled skeletons, but rather as scattered pieces that needed to be put together by anatomists. To make matters worse, deposits often contained the fossilized remains of several species of animals mixed together. Anatomists reassembling these skeletons ran the risk of combining remains of different species, producing imaginary composite species. However, by examining the functional purpose of each bone and applying the principle of correlation of parts, Cuvier believed that this problem could be avoided.

This principleâ€™s ability to aid in reconstruction of fossils was also helpful to Cuvier's work in providing evidence in favor extinction. The strongest evidence Cuvier could provide in favor of extinction would be to prove that the fossilized remains of an animal belonged to a species that no longer existed. By applying Cuvier's principle of correlation of parts, it would be easier to verify that a fossilized skeleton had been authentically reconstructed, thus validating any observations drawn from comparing it to skeletons of existing species.

In addition to helping anatomists reconstruct fossilized remains, Cuvier believed that his principle held enormous predictive power as well. For example, when he discovered a fossil that resembled a marsupial in the gypsum quarries of Montmartre, he correctly predicted that the fossil would contain bones commonly found in marsupials in its pelvis as well.[43]

To Cuvier, the use of his principle to predict the existence of marsupial pelvic bones in the gypsum quarries of Montmartre elevated his principle to a truly scientific status. He hoped that some day anatomy would be expressed as laws as simple, mathematical, and predictive as Newton's laws of physics, and he viewed his principle as an important step in that direction.

The principle of correlation of parts was also Cuvier's way of understanding function in a non-evolutionary context, without invoking a divine creator.[44] In the same 1798 paper on the fossil remains of an animal found in plaster quarries near Paris, Cuvier emphasizes the predictive power of his principle, writing,[42]

Today comparative anatomy has reached such a point of perfection that, after inspecting a single bone, one can often determine the class, and sometimes even the genus of the animal to which it belonged, above all if that bone belonged to the head or the limbs... This is because the number, direction, and shape of the bones that compose each part of an animal's body are always in a necessary relation to all the other parts, in such a way that—up to a point—one can infer the whole from any one of them and vice versa.

Though Cuvier believed that his principle's major contribution was that it was a rational, mathematical way to reconstruct fossils and make predictions, in reality it was difficult for Cuvier to use his principle. The functional significance of many body parts were still unknown at the time, and so relating those body parts to other body parts using Cuvier's principle was impossible. Though Cuvier was able to make accurate predictions about fossil finds, in practice the accuracy of his predictions came not from application of his principle, but rather from his vast knowledge of comparative anatomy. However, despite Cuvier's exaggerations of the power of his principle, the basic concept is central to comparative anatomy and paleontology.[43]

At the Paris Museum, Cuvier furthered his studies on the anatomical classification of animals. He believed that classification should be based on how organs collectively function, a concept he called functional integration. Cuvier also reinforced the idea of subordinating less vital body parts to more critical organ systems as part of anatomical classification. He published these ideas in his book called animal distribué d'après son organisation, pour servir de base à l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction à l'anatomie comparée, or The Animal Kingdom Arranged after its Organization; Forming a Natural History of Animals, and an Introduction to Comparative Anatomy) in 1817.

In his anatomical studies, Cuvier believed function played a bigger role than form in the field of taxonomy. His scientific beliefs rested in the idea of the principles of the correlation of parts and of the conditions of existence. The former principle accounts for the connection between organ function and its practical use for an organism to survive. The latter principle emphasizes the animal’s physiological function in relation to its surrounding environment. These findings were published in his scientific readings, including Leçons d'anatomie comparée (Lessons on Comparative Anatomy) and in Le Règne Animal (The Animal Kingdom) in the early 19th century and 1817 respectively.

Ultimately, Cuvier developed four embranchements, or branches, through which he classified animals based on his taxonomical and anatomical studies. He later performed groundbreaking work in classifying animals in vertebrate and invertebrate groups by subdividing each category. For instance, he proposed that the invertebrates could be segmented into three individual categories, including Mollusca, Radiata, and Articulata. He also articulated that species cannot move across these categories, a theory called transmutation. He reasoned that organisms cannot acquire or change their physical traits over time and still retain optimal survival. As a result, he often conflicted with Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Jean-Baptiste Lamarckâ€™s theories of transmutation.

In 1798 Cuvier published his first independent work, the Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux, which was an abridgment of his course of lectures at the École du Pantheon and may be regarded as the foundation and first statement of his natural classification of the animal kingdom.

In 1800 he published the Leçons d'anatomie comparée, assisted by A. M. C. Duméril for the first two volumes and Georges Louis Duvernoy for the three later ones.

Cuvier categorized snails, cockles, and cuttlefish into one category he called molluscs, or mollusca, an embranchment. Though he noted how all three of these animals were outwardly different in terms of shell shape and diet, he saw a noticeable pattern pertaining to their overall physical appearance.

Cuvier's papers on the so-called Mollusca began appearing as early as 1792, but most of his memoirs on this branch were published in the Annales du museum between 1802 and 1815; they were subsequently collected as Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire et à l'anatomie des mollusques, published in one volume at Paris in 1817.

"When the French Academy was preparing its first dictionary, it defined "crab" as, "A small red fish which walks backwards." This definition was sent with a number of others to the naturalist Cuvier for his approval. The scientist wrote back, "Your definition, gentlemen, would be perfect, only for three exceptions. The crab is not a fish, it is not red and it does not walk backwards."

Source unknown, but probably Times Literary Supplement (UK).

Cuvier's researches on fish, begun in 1801, finally culminated in the publication of the Histoire naturelle des poissons, which contained descriptions of 5,000 species of fishes, and was a joint production with Achille Valenciennes. Cuvier's work on this project extended over the years 1828â€“1831.

In palaeontology, Cuvier published a long list of memoirs, partly relating to the bones of extinct animals, and partly detailing the results of observations on the skeletons of living animals, specially examined with a view toward throwing light upon the structure and affinities of the fossil forms.

Among living forms he published papers relating to the osteology of the Rhinoceros Indicus, the tapir, Hyrax capensis, the hippopotamus, the sloths, the manatee, etc.

He produced an even larger body of work on fossils, dealing with the extinct mammals of the Eocene beds of Montmartre, the fossil species of hippopotamus, a marsupial (which he called Didelphys gypsorum), the Megalonyx, the Megatherium, the cave-hyena, the pterodactyl, the extinct species of rhinoceros, the cave bear, the mastodon, the extinct species of elephant, fossil species of manatee and seals, fossil forms of crocodilians, chelonians, fish, birds, etc. The department of palaeontology dealing with the Mammalia may be said to have been essentially created and established by Cuvier.

The results of Cuvier's principal palaeontological and geological investigations ultimately were given to the world in the form of two separate works: Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles de quadrupÃ¨des (Paris, 1812; later editions in 1821 and 1825); and Discours sur les revolutions de la surface du globe (Paris, 1825). In this latter work he expounded a scientific theory of Catastrophism.

Cuvier's most admired work was his Le Règne Animal. It appeared in four octavo volumes in 1817; a second edition in five volumes was brought out in 1829–1830. In this classic work, Cuvier presented the results of his life's research into the structure of living and fossil animals. With the exception of the section on insects, in which he was assisted by his friend Latreille, the whole of the work was his own. It was translated into English many times, often with substantial notes and supplementary material updating the book in accordance with the expansion of knowledge.

Cuvier was a Protestant and a believer in monogenism, who held that all men descended from the biblical Adam, although his position usually was confused as polygenist. Some writers who have studied his racial work have dubbed his position as "quasi-polygenist", and most of his racial studies have influenced scientific racism. Cuvier believed there were three distinct races: the Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), and the Ethiopian (black). Cuvier claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian, the original race of mankind. The other two races originated by survivors escaping in different directions after a major catastrophe hit the earth 5,000 years ago, with those survivors then living in complete isolation from each other.[45][46]

Cuvier categorized these divisions he identified into 'races' according to his perception of the beauty or ugliness of their skulls and the quality of their civilizations. He placed the Caucasians at the top with the skull shape he considered the most beautiful, and the Ethiopians at the bottom.[47]

Cuvier wrote regarding Caucasians:

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.[48]

Regarding Ethiopians, he wrote that the 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.[49]

Cuvier's racial studies held the supposed features of polygenism, namely fixity of species; limits on environmental influence; unchanging underlying type; anatomical and cranial measurement differences in races; physical and mental differences between distinct races.[45]

A major anthropological study done by Georges Cuvier was that of Saartjie Baartman. In 1815, Cuvier was a surgeon general to Napoleon Bonaparte. While in this position, the Naturalist received the body of a Khoikhoi woman by the name of Saartje or "Sarah" Baartman. Baartman was a South African immigrant who came to Europe based on the promise that she could become wealthy by displaying her body for Europeans. Based on this promise, Baartman sailed to England where she was treated like a slave and forced to continue displaying her naked body as a curiosity. During these showings, the emphasis was placed on Baartmanâ€™s prominent rear end and large sexual organs. In 1814, Baartman was taken to Paris and given to a travelling circus, and where she was subjected to scientific study. One of the scientists who examined her was Cuvier, who developed a fascination with her "ape-like" features.

Baartman died in poverty in 1815 from an unknown inflammatory disease (identified possibly as Syphilis). Her body was sent to Cuvier for scientific observation. Upon receiving the body, Cuvier first made several plaster casts and a wax mold of her body, and then proceeded to dissect her. He removed her skeleton and put it up for display, along with a cast, in the French National Museum of Natural History. Then, he separated her brain and genitals from the rest of her body. These organs were then preserved in jars that were on display for more than 150 years, first in the National Museum of Natural History, and then in the Museum of Man following its establishment in 1937. Her remains and casts were finally taken off display in the late 1970s, following complaints from the public. The display was replaced with one relating Baartman's story in the context of the history of scientific racism.[50][51]

French anatomist Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville published notes on Baartman's dissection in 1816, which were republished by Cuvier in the Memoires du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in 1817. "Her personality," Cuvier wrote of her in his monograph, "was lively, her memory good and, after a gap of some weeks, she recognised someone she had seen only the once. She spoke reasonable Dutch, which she had learned in The Cape, knew some English, and was beginning to say a few words in French. She danced according to the fashion of her own country, and played on the instrument they call the 'jew's harp' quite by ear... her shoulders, back, and upper chest were graceful... Her arms (rather slender) were very well-made, and her hand charming. Her foot was also very pretty..."[52] Despite his impressions of her, Cuvier interpreted her remains, in accordance with his theories on racial evolution, as evidencing ape-like traits. He thought her small ears were similar to those of an orangutan and also compared her vivacity, when alive, to the quickness of a monkey.[51]

In Cuvier’s published reports, he compared her with the orangutan and the said she was among the lowest of the human species. One of the reasons Cuvier was so interested in Baartman was because he thought her to be the “missing link” in the evolution of humankind. Cuvier and other researchers of his time used her sexuality and physiognomy to maintain her sense of otherness and to justify the crude examinations of her body. Sarah Baartman’s sexual organs provided the "central image for the black female throughout the 19th century."[53] During this time, black female sexuality was considered pathological and compared to a prostitute, “embodying the sexualized female as a representative of lasciviousness, corruption and disease.” The comparative anatomist therefore served as a “mediator between the world of science and the realm of popular perception,” and Georges Cuvier allowed his racial perception of the world to shape his scientific studies.[54]

Apart from his own original investigations in zoology and paleontology Cuvier carried out a vast amount of work as perpetual secretary of the National Institute, and as an official connected with public education generally; and much of this work appeared ultimately in a published form. Thus, in 1808 he was placed by Napoleon upon the council of the Imperial University, and in this capacity he presided (in the years 1809, 1811, and 1813) over commissions charged to examine the state of the higher educational establishments in the districts beyond the Alps and the Rhine that had been annexed to France, and to report upon the means by which these could be affiliated with the central university. He published three separate reports on this subject.

In his capacity, again, of perpetual secretary of the Institute, he not only prepared a number of éloges historiques on deceased members of the Academy of Sciences, but was also the author of a number of reports on the history of the physical and natural sciences, the most important of these being the Rapport historique sur le progrès des sciences physiques depuis 1789, published in 1810.

Prior to the fall of Napoleon (1814) he had been admitted to the council of state, and his position remained unaffected by the restoration of the Bourbons. He was elected chancellor of the university, in which capacity he acted as interim president of the council of public instruction, whilst he also, as a Lutheran, superintended the faculty of Protestant theology. In 1819 he was appointed president of the committee of the interior, an office he retained until his death.

In 1826 he was made grand officer of the Legion of Honour; he subsequently was appointed president of the council of state. He served as a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres from 1830 to his death. A member of the Doctrinaires, he was nominated to the ministry of the interior in the beginning of 1832.

Cuvier is commemorated in the naming of several animals; they include Cuvier's beaked whale (which he first thought to be extinct), Cuvier's gazelle, Cuvier's toucan, Cuvier's bichir, Cuvier's dwarf caiman, Galeocerdo cuvier (tiger shark), and Anolis cuvieri, a lizard from Puerto Rico. There also are some extinct animals named after Cuvier, such as the South American giant sloth Catonyx cuvieri.

Cuvier Island in New Zealand was named after Cuvier by D'Urville.[55]

The professor of English Wayne Glausser argues at length that the Aubrey-Maturin series of 21 novels (1970â€“2004) by Patrick O'Brian make the character Stephen Maturin "an advocate of the neo-classical paradigm articulated.. by Georges Cuvier."[56]

Cuvier also collaborated on the Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles (61 volumes, 1816–1845) and on the Biographie universelle (45 volumes, 1843-18??)


who sang the theme song from china beach

China Beach was a critically lauded, but poorly rated series. ABC stuck with the show for four seasons, but the final season was put on hiatus in fall 1990 and did not air its finale until July 22, 1991. As a result of the scheduling, Dana Delany was eligible for (and ultimately won) a Best Actress Emmy Award in the fall of 1992, a year after the series broadcast its final episode and over a year and a half after many of the scenes were filmed. The title sequence theme song was "Reflections" by Diana Ross & the Supremes (although several episodes instead used "We Gotta Get out of This Place" by Eric Burdon with Katrina & The Waves).[8]

China Beach

China Beach is an American dramatic television series set at an evacuation hospital during the Vietnam War. The title refers to My Khe[1] beach in the city of Đà Nẵng, Vietnam, nicknamed "China Beach" in English by American and Australian soldiers during the Vietnam War.[2][3][4][5] The ABC TV drama aired for four seasons, from 1988 to 1991.

Created by William Broyles Jr. and John Sacret Young, the series looks at the Vietnam War from unique perspectives: those of the women, military personnel, and civilians who were present during the conflict. John Wells took over most of the series beginning with the second season, and many of the show's cast members appeared later on the Wells-produced series ER.

Set in a Vietnam locale nicknamed "Bac My An Beach", at the 510th Evacuation Hospital and R&R (the "Five-and-Dime" Rest & Recreation) facility, the series' cast of characters includes US Army doctors and nurses, officers, soldiers, Red Cross volunteers, and civilian personnel (American, French, and Vietnamese). The series also features the experiences of the characters when they return to the U.S., either on leave or at the end of their tours of duty. The show does not shy away from showing the brutality of war; it provides a very gritty view of the experience there.

The show is based on the book Home Before Morning (1983) written by former U.S. Army Nurse Lynda Van Devanter.[6] The show's character Nurse Colleen McMurphy roughly follows Van Devanter's experiences as a nurse in Vietnam. The book takes the reader from Van Devanter's wish to serve her country, through the adventure she thought her deployment to Vietnam would be, her culture shock upon returning to "the States", and her struggles with PTSD. The TV show was cancelled before it could fully address McMurphy's PTSD issues. Van Devanter died in 2002.[7]

Over four seasons from 1988 to 1991, the series aired 62 episodes.

John Sacret Young stated at the Paley Center prior to the show's October 2013 release on DVD that he had written a follow-up novel titled Reflections where Colleen, now in her sixties and recently widowed, returns to Vietnam and reconnects with a retired Dr. Dick and venture capitalist K.C. Koloski. Young also hoped to adapt it into a TV movie.[9]

China Beach debuted in rerun Syndication on the women-focused Lifetime on November 4, 1991.[10]

In December 2012 it was announced that the series, among the most-requested television shows not available through either VHS or DVD following its broadcast run, would be issued on DVD in a box set (including new interviews with cast members and various bonus features) and released on April 15, 2013 through StarVista Entertainment (affiliated with TimeLife). The collection includes 302 songs heard during the series.[8] To mark the show's 25th anniversary, a 21-disc collector's set was released October 1, 2013.[11]

Music rights long delayed the release on DVD. More than 250 songs were licensed; seventeen could not be, and were either deleted or replaced.[12]


what does it mean by annual household income

Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular household or place of residence. It includes every form of income, e.g., salaries and wages, retirement  income, near cash government transfers like food stamps, and investment gains.

Household income

Average household income can be used as an indicator for the monetary well-being of a country's citizens. Mean or median net household income, after taxes and mandatory contributions, are good indicators of standard of living, because they include only disposable income and acknowledge people sharing accommodation benefit from pooling at least some of their living costs.

Average household incomes need not map directly to measures of an individual's earnings such as per capita income as numbers of people sharing households and numbers of income earners per household can vary significantly between regions and over time.

The list below represents a national accounts derived indicator based on adjusted gross income, which is defined as "the balance of primary incomes of an institutional unit or sector by adding all current transfers, except social transfers in kind, receivable by that unit or sector and subtracting all current transfers, except social transfers in kind, payable by that unit or sector; it is the balancing item in the Secondary Distribution of Income Account" [1] "plus transfers in kind" received mainly from government, such as healthcare and education.[2] It is based on the national accounts, which follows a standardized accounting (System of National Accounts) so to allow for comparability. It is also not survey based, which avoids survey errors and underreporting. The following is published by the OECD and is presented in purchasing power parity (PPP) so to adjust for costs of living.

Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) has a publicly available database with comparable statistics on household incomes for several countries, as has the OECD.[4] These are the sources used.

Below are presented the mean and median disposable household incomes, adjusted for differences in household size.[5] Thus, the figures presented are per person (equivalized) and after all income taxes and mandatory social contributions are paid. All figures were converted using respective year purchasing power parity (PPP) for private consumption, which is recommended when comparing incomes internationally.[6] The PPP conversion rates are taken directly from the OECD database. All incomes are in the prices when income was earned, and  refer to year 2004, except for Australia (2003), UK (2004â€“2005), and Sweden (2005). The exact definition of income can be seen in the LIS website (variable DPI). Generally, it includes all cash income (e.g., earnings, pensions, interests, dividends, rental income, social transfers) and excludes most non-cash income (e.g., employer contributions to social insurances, governmental health care, education). Note that capital gains are excluded from the income definition.[clarification needed]

Caution should be made when comparing countries based on a strict ranking, since not all datasets are capturing income equally. For instance, income spent on private health insurance, which in 2004 was about $1300 per household in the US, is not subtracted.[7] In terms of underreporting, the U.S. dataset (US Census) captured only 80% of the gross income aggregate as of 2004.[8] By contrast, Finland, UK, and Norway registered much higher coverage with less underreporting.[9]

Median household income divides households in a country or region into two equal segments with the first half of households earning less than the median household income and the other half earning more. It is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator than the mean household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values."[13]


how many pairs of muscles in the body

Almost every muscle constitutes one part of a pair of identical bilateral muscles, found on both sides, resulting in approximately 320 pairs of muscles, as presented in this article. Nevertheless, the exact number is difficult to define because different sources group muscles differently, e.g. regarding what is defined as different parts of a single muscle or as several muscles.

List of skeletal muscles of the human body

This is a table of skeletal muscles of the human anatomy.

The muscles of the human body can be categorized into a number of groups which include muscles relating to the head and neck, muscles of the torso or trunk, muscles of the upper limbs, and muscles of the lower limbs.

The action refers to the action of each muscle from the standard anatomical position. In other positions, other actions may be performed.

These muscles are described using anatomical terminology.

fibularis muscles:


who played will munson on as the world turns

William "Will" Harold Ryan Munson is a fictional character on the CBS soap opera As the World Turns. He was portrayed by Jesse Soffer on recurring basis from September 2004 to March 2005, after which he got a contract as a regular. Soffer left the show on April 4, 2008 and made a brief return in July 2010.

Will Munson

Born to Oakdale police chief Hal Munson and noted fashion designer Barbara Ryan, Will's world came crashing down when as a pre-teen his parents divorced. His mother's subsequent nervous breakdown and criminal activity were traumatic experiences for the young Will, who was frequently shuffled back and forth between caregivers during the height of the drama.

Eventually custody of Will was restored to Barbara, despite objections that she was unfit. Will's older brother Paul felt in particular a need to "rescue" Will from Barbara's toxic influence. Barbara blamed her problems getting through to Paul on his fiancee, Rose D'Angelo. Caught in a tug-of-war between Barbara and the rest of his family, and convinced by Barbara that Rose was the only obstacle between him and his old happy life, Will took action. On the day Paul and Rose were to be married, Rose collapsed at the altar and died, a victim of poisoning. The 13-year-old Will eventually confessed to the crime, though he claimed his intent was not to kill Rose but rather make her sick enough that the wedding and Paul's relocation to Paris would be postponed or cancelled. Will was sent away to a state mental facility.

After being treated with some success, Will was released from the facility in late 2004, now a young man of 16. At first he had a difficult time re-adjusting to life in Oakdale, given that the victim's family still resided there and were not pleased at his presence, mostly her sister, Lily Snyder. Gradually however things got easier for Will, with the support of his brother Paul and his new wife Rosanna Cabot, and a strong social circle that included old friends Casey Hughes and Luke Snyder.

Will befriended Gwen Norbeck in 2005, and quickly learned that she was pregnant by his friend Casey. Casey refused to acknowledge the possibility that he was the father and accused Gwen of stalking him. Not willing to abandon Gwen in her time of need, Will stood up and claimed he was the father, despite the unhappiness this caused his parents and best friend. Will and Gwen stood alone, and he helped her through her difficult pregnancy. When it came to light that Gwen's baby had been switched with Will's nephew, Johnny Donovan, at birth, and that Gwen's baby had died, Will still supported her and they fell in love. Despite the continued opposition from Barbara and Hal, Will married Gwen in March 2006. The pair have survived numerous obstacles since.

Gwen discovered she was pregnant with Will's baby in August 2007. Unfortunately, she miscarried the baby. Alison Stewart offered to donate her eggs in order to help them conceive. Unfortunately, Gwen miscarried a second time. After the miscarriage, Barbara told Will and Gwen that a couple wanted to give up their unborn child for adoption. They had doubts because the biological parents wanted to remain anonymous, but eventually decided to go on with the plan. They didn't know that the couple was Sophie Duran and her boyfriend, Cole Norbeck. Barbara and Iris, Gwen's mother, had actually formulated the plan, compensating Cole to go along with it. Sophie was told that her baby would go to a couple who wanted to remain unknown as well. Upon Alison's discovery of the plan, she told Will and Gwen, who confronted Barbara and Iris. Barbara admitted that there was no other way for them to adopt, because of Will's mental history. Will told Sophie of the plan and cut ties with his mother. A week later, Sophie went into labor, and Gwen and Will helped her deliver a baby girl. Eventually, Sophie decided to let Gwen and Will adopt the baby, on the condition that Sophie be a part of her life.

Sophie signed away her rights to the baby, and Will and Gwen named her Hallie Jennifer Munson in honor of Will's father and sister. As Sophie became more and more emotionally involved in Hallie's life, Will and Gwen asked her to step away for a while; as a result, Sophie became depressed. Barbara became Hallie's caregiver when Will and Gwen were working; Sophie tried to visit Hallie, and Barbara harshly rebuffed her. Later that day, Sophie kidnapped Hallie, and Gwen and Will went to the police as soon as they discovered what had happened, well aware that it was Sophie who had taken the baby. Aaron, a friend of Sophie's and Hallie's godfather, found Sophie and Hallie in New York, and eventually Sophie returned Hallie to Will and Gwen because she had a fever. Out of sympathy for Sophie, Gwen convinced Will to drop the kidnapping charges against Sophie.

Sophie decided that she wanted to sue for custody of Hallie. Her feelings of depression and abandonment increased when Aaron testified on Will and Gwen's behalf, and the judge awarded the Munsons custody. Gwen started to feel guilty about keeping Hallie from Sophie, but Will wanted to keep her. Gwen gave Sophie custody illegally, and despite Will's anger he still loved her. When Hallie got sick again, and Will and Gwen provided care for her, Sophie realized that they were the best parents for her and they could provide her with the best life. Will and Gwen left town with Hallie soon after. They returned together with Hallie July 9, 2010 because they were worried about Barbara, who had been kidnapped by Will's mother-in-law, Iris Dumbrowski. After the ordeal, Will and Gwen went back to Carbondale.


what is the equivalent of cents in euro

There are eight different denominations of euro coins: 1c, 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, €1 and €2.[12] The 1c, 2c and 5c coins show Europe in relation to Asia and Africa in the world.[12] The remaining coins show the EU before its enlargement in May 2004 if minted before 1 January 2007, or a geographical map of Europe if minted after.[12] Coins from Italy, San Marino, the Vatican City, Austria and Portugal show the geographical map if minted in 2008 or later.[12]

Euro coins

There are eight euro coin denominations, ranging from one cent to two euros[1] (the euro is divided into a hundred cents). The coins first came into use in 2002. They have a common reverse, portraying a map of Europe, but each country in the eurozone has its own design on the obverse, which means that each coin has a variety of different designs in circulation at once. Four European microstates which use the euro as their currency also have the right to mint coins with their own designs on the obverse side.

The coins, and various commemorative coins, are minted at numerous national mints across the European Union to strict national quotas. Obverse designs are chosen nationally, while the reverse and the currency as a whole is managed by the European Central Bank (ECB).

The euro came into existence on 1 January 1999.[2] It had been a goal of the European Union (EU) and its predecessors since the 1960s.[2] The Maastricht Treaty entered into force in 1993 with the goal of creating economic and monetary union by 1999 for all EU states except the UK and Denmark (even though Denmark has a fixed exchange rate policy with the euro).[3]

In 1999 the currency was born virtually and in 2002 notes and coins began to circulate.[2] It rapidly replaced the former national currencies and the eurozone has since expanded further to some newer EU states.[2] In 2009 the Lisbon Treaty formalised its political authority, the Eurogroup, alongside the European Central Bank.[4]

In 2004 €2 commemorative coins were allowed to be minted in six states.[5] By 2007, all states but France, Ireland and the Netherlands had minted a commemorative issue[6] and the first eurozone-wide commemorative coin was issued to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome.[7] In 2009, the second eurozone-wide issue of a 2-euro commemorative coin was issued, celebrating ten years of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).[8] In 2012, the third eurozone-wide issue of a 2-euro commemorative coin was issued, celebrating 10 years of euro coins and notes.[9] To date, only Cyprus has not independently issued a €2 commemorative coin.[10]

As the EU's membership has since expanded in 2004, 2007 and 2013,[11] with further expansions envisaged, the common face of all euro coins from the value of 10c and above were redesigned in 2007 to show a new map.[12]

Slovenia joined the eurozone in 2007, Cyprus and Malta joined in 2008, Slovakia in 2009, Estonia in 2011, Latvia in 2014 and Lithuania in 2015, introducing seven more national-side designs.[13] Andorra started minting coins in 2014, so from 2015 there are 23 countries with their own national sides.

The common side was designed by Luc Luycx of the Royal Belgian Mint.[14] They symbolise the unity of the EU.[14] The national sides were designed by the NCBs of the eurozone in separate competitions. There are specifications which apply to all coins such as the requirement of including twelve stars. National designs were not allowed to change until the end of 2008, unless a monarch (whose portrait usually appears on the coins) dies or abdicates. National designs have seen some changes due to a new rule stating that national designs should include the name of the issuing country.[15]

The common side of the 1c, 2c and 5c coins depict the denomination, the words 'EURO CENT' beside it, twelve stars and Europe highlighted on a globe in relation to Asia and Africa in the world. The common side of the 10c, 20c and 50c coins currently depict the denomination on the right, the words 'EURO CENT' underneath it, with twelve stars and the European continent on the left. Coins minted from 1999 to 2006 depicted only the EU15, rather than the entire European continent, which is on coins minted after 2007. The common side of the €1 and €2 coins depict the denomination on the left, the currency, map of Europe and twelve stars on the right. Similarly, coins minted from 1999 to 2006 depicted the EU15, rather than the whole European continent, which is on coins minted from 2007.[12][16]

All coins have a common reverse side showing how much the coin is worth, with a design by Belgian designer Luc Luycx.[12] The design of the 1c, 2c and 5c coins shows Europe's place in the world as a whole.[12] The 10c coins and above show either the 15 countries that were the European Union in 2002, or, if minted after 2007, the whole European continent.[12] Coins from Italy, San Marino, the Vatican, Austria and Portugal show the new design if minted 2008 or later.[12] The coins symbolise the unity of the EU.[14]

On 7 June 2005, the European Council decided that the common side of the 10c to â‚¬2 coins should be brought up to date to reflect the enlargement of the EU in 2004.[16] The 1c, 2c and 5c coins show Europe in relation to the rest of the world, therefore they remained unchanged.[16] In 2007, the new design was introduced.[12] The design still retains all elements of the original designs, including the twelve stars, but the map of the fifteen states is replaced by one showing the whole of Europe as a continent, without borders, to stress unity.[12][16] These coins were not mandatory for existing eurozone members when introduced in 2007, but became so for every member in 2008.[16]

Cyprus is shown several hundred kilometres north west of its real position in order to include it on the map. On the €1 and €2 coins, the island is shown to be directly east of mainland Greece; on the 10c, 20c and 50c coins, it appears directly below Crete. The original proposal from the European Commission was to include Turkey on the map, but this design was rejected by the Council.

The original designs of the 10c, 20c and 50c coins showed the outline of each of the 15 EU member states. Each state was shown as separate from the others, thus giving Europe the appearance of an archipelago. EU member states outside the eurozone (the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark) were also depicted. Non-EU states were not depicted.

On the €1 and €2 coins, the landmass appeared more cohesive although borders were indicated. As in current issues, all coins featured 12 stars in their design.

The year featured on the coins can date back to 1999, when the currency was formally established (only Belgian, Finnish, French, Dutch, and Spanish coins were struck with the 1999 date). These countries traditionally strike coins with the year of minting rather than the year it was put into circulation.

Researchers from the University of Zürich warned that an external ring of metal surrounding an inner pill of a different colour, as in the euro coins, can lead to the release of high levels of nickel, causing allergic reactions with people sensitive to the metal. The researchers also warned that the coins could contain between 240 and 320 times the amount of nickel allowed under the EU nickel directive.[17]

The obverse side varies from state to state, with each member allowed to choose its own design. Each of the eight coins can have the same design (such as Irish coins), or can vary from coin to coin (such as Italian coins). In monarchies, the national side usually features a portrait of the country's monarch, often in a design carried over from the former currency (e.g. Belgian coins). Republics tend to feature national monuments, symbols, or stylised designs (such as French coins). Engravings on the edge of the â‚¬2 coin are also subject to national choice.

There are, however, some restrictions on the design: it must include twelve stars, the engraver's initials, and the year of issue. New issues must also include the name of the issuing country or an abbreviation of it. It may not repeat the denomination of the coin or the word euro unless it is in a different alphabet (such as on Greek coins).[15] This rule is flouted by Austria. The national side was also to remain unchanged until the end of 2008, unless a monarch depicted on a coin died or abdicated (such as in the case of the Vatican's coins or Monegasque coins).

There are at present no plans to abolish the national designs in favour of a common European one. However, the Commission has proposed that the 1c, 2c and 5c coins have a common design to keep costs down.[18]

Though they are not members of the EU, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City also have euro coins featuring a national side, but a considerable number of these coins are not put into general circulation by the authorities who instead sell them to collectors for prices higher than their face value.[19]

No territories associated with Eurozone countries are issuing their own euro coins. France and Netherlands have areas which have their own currencies. Denmark and the United Kingdom have areas which use the currencies of their home countries but issue their own versions of banknotes. These two countries are part of the EU but not the eurozone, and it is uncertain what would happen if any of them adopted the euro.

From 2015 there are 23 countries issuing coins with their own national sides, making it 184 different euro coins, not counting annual differences or commemorative coins.

The national sides of all denominations of the euro circulation coins should bear an indication of the issuing Member State by means of the Member Stateâ€™s name or an abbreviation of it.

The national side should not repeat any indication on the denomination, or any parts thereof, of the coin neither should it repeat the name of the single currency or of its subdivision, unless such indication stems from the use of a different alphabet.

This Recommendation should apply to national sides and edge letterings of both normal and commemorative euro circulation coins. It should not apply to the national sides and edge letterings of both normal and commemorative euro circulation coins which have been first issued prior to the adoption of this Recommendation.

The above paragraphs, from a European Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008, in essence, exhorted five eurozone members to change their national designs. Finland and Belgium did so in 2007 and 2008 respectively while Austria, Germany[20] and Greece have not announced any design changes as of February 2018. However, the regulation only stipulates 20 June 2062 as a deadline for revising designs.[21]

As of  2016[update], Belgium, Monaco, the Netherlands, Spain and the Vatican have all experienced a change in head of state and have revised their designs to reflect this and the new regulation where applicable.

Euro coins have high-security machine-readable features.[22] Sophisticated bi-metal and sandwich technologies have been put into the €1 and €2 coins.[22] The 10c, 20c and 50c coins are made of Nordic gold, which is a unique alloy, difficult to melt and used exclusively for coins.[22] The lettering on the edge of the €2 coin also protects it from counterfeiting.[22]

Euro coins were designed in cooperation with organisations representing blind persons, and as a result they incorporate many features allowing them to be distinguished by touch alone. In addition, their visual appearance is designed to make them easy to tell apart for persons who cannot read the inscriptions on the coins.

The coins increase in size and weight with value. Of the eight denominations of euro coins, the three lowest denominations are small, resemble copper in colour and are quite thin and light. The next three denominations resemble gold in colour and are thicker as well as heavier.  The highest two denominations are bimetallic, being generally larger and thicker than the lower denominations.

In general, the greater the value, the heavier and larger the coin. Copper colour identifies low value; gold colour identifies medium value; two different metals identify high value.

There are also differences within each group. The 2 cent coin has a grooved edge to distinguish it from the 1 and 5 cent coins and also from the US penny, which has the same colour and diameter. Similarly, the 20 cent coin is smooth with seven indents to distinguish it from the 10 and 50 cent coins.

Although there have been other currencies predating the euro that were specifically designed in similar ways (different sizes, colours, and ridges) to aid the visually impaired, the introduction of the euro constitutes the first time that authorities have consulted associations representing the blind and visually impaired before the release of a currency.

Each state allowed to issue coins may also mint two commemorative coins each year from June 2012. From 2004 to May 2012, countries were only allowed to mint one coin per year. Only €2 coins may be used in this way (for them to be legal tender) and there is a limit on the number that can be issued. The coin must show the normal design criteria, such as the twelve stars, the year and the issuing country.

Greece was the first country to issue a commemorative coin, and was followed by all but Cyprus and Ireland. However, in 2007 every eurozone state participated in the Treaty of Rome programme, where all member states issued a coin of similar design to commemorate the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the only difference being the name of the issuing country and the language of the text. This was repeated in 2009 in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Economic and Monetary Union. The design was selected by electronic voting by EU citizens.[dead link] The most recent common commemorative coin was issued in 2015 to commemorate 30 years of the European Union flag.

In 2006, Germany began issuing a series of coins, the German Bundesländer series, showing each of the states of Germany on its coins; this will last until 2021.

Spain started a commemorative coin series Patrimonio de la Humanidad de la UNESCO (UNESCO World Heritage) in 2010, commemorating all of Spain's UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which could continue until 2050. The order in which the coin for a specific site is issued coincides with the order in which they were declared a UNESCO World Heritage site.[23]

Malta issued a series of five €2 commemorative coins, all related to the Maltese constitutional history. The first coin was released in 2011 and the last coin was minted in 2015.[24]

A legacy of old national practice is the minting of silver and gold commemorative coins. Unlike normal issues, these coins are not legal tender throughout the eurozone, but only in the country where they are issued (e.g. a â‚¬10 Finnish commemorative coin cannot be used in Portugal).

However, these gold coins are intended for collectors as their bullion value vastly exceeds their face value. Some silver coins, such as the German â‚¬10 commemoratives, are often available at banks and some retailers at face value. These coins, however, generally do not circulate but are kept by collectors.

It is uncertain whether the Council of Ministers will grant them legal tender status elsewhere outside national boundaries, as San Marino, Monaco, and the Vatican City also issue this kind of coins.

The Belgian 2.5 euro coin is a commemorative euro coin valid in Belgium first minted in 2015. The coin commemorates the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's defeat in the Battle of Waterloo.[25]

Belgium originally minted €2 commemorative coins for the occasion, but their circulation was blocked by France and the coins were subsequently destroyed. Minting in the 2.5 euro denomination gets around the ability of France to veto production as they will only be legal tender in Belgium.[26]

The European Central Bank closely monitors the circulation and stock of the euro coins and banknotes. It is a task of the Eurosystem to ensure an efficient and smooth supply of euro coins and to maintain their integrity throughout the eurozone.[27]

As of Oct 2016, there are approximately 120 billion coins in circulation around the eurozone. In contrast the USA has minted over 300 billion pennies since 1983 when the current copper-plated zinc metallic composition began. Using a population of 339 million for the EU that is 170 coins of denomination 1c or 2c per capita, and 185 other coins per capita.

Approximately 100,000 counterfeit euro coins are taken from circulation annually, and roughly the same number are seized before they can be released. Given a total circulation of 56 billion coins, counterfeit coins are relatively rare. About half the counterfeits feature the German national design, but counterfeits have been detected for every issuing country. The majority of counterfeit coins are €2 (60% in 2011), with most of the rest being €1, and a few 50c coins. The number of counterfeit €2 coins being found annually is decreasing, while numbers of counterfeit €1 and 50-cent coins are increasing.

Total amount of counterfeit coins seized from circulation in:

The European Technical and Scientific Centre estimates that up to 2 million counterfeit coins were put into circulation in 2002.

Recent investigations by the European Commission have shown that counterfeit sophistication is increasing, making prompt detection more difficult.[33] In 2008, Irish MEP Eoin Ryan called for tighter regulation over tokens and medals that are being increasingly used for small purchases mainly in vending machines across Europe.[34]

The 1c, 2c, and 5c coins account for approximately 80% of all new coins minted in the eurozone. Due to the expense of producing such low value coinage, the Commission and some member states have proposed that costs could be cut by having a common design on both sides of these coins, rather than minting numerous different designs.[18]

The €1 and €2 coins are two-toned.  The "gold" is an alloy, 75% copper, 20% zinc and 5% nickel.  The "silver" is cupronickel, 75% copper, 25% nickel.[35] The 10c, 20c and 50c coins are a proprietary alloy known as "Nordic gold", consisting of 89% copper, 5% aluminium, 5% zinc and 1% tin.[36] The 1c, 2c, and 5c coins are copper-coated steel fourrées.[35] The copper alloys make the coinage antimicrobial.

The 1c and 2c coins were initially introduced to ensure that the introduction of the euro was not used as an excuse by retailers to heavily round up prices. However, due to the cost of maintaining a circulation of low value coins, by business and the mints, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands round prices to the nearest five cents (Swedish rounding) if paying with cash, while producing only a handful of those coins for collectors, rather than general circulation.[37][38][39] The coins are still legal tender and produced outside these states.[40] Despite this, many shops in the Netherlands refuse to accept them.[citation needed]

The Swedish rounding law in Finland was issued in January 2002 just shortly after the coins were put into circulation. The Netherlands followed suit in September 2004, with Belgium making moves to follow in 2005, but no mandatory rounding has been applied.[40] The Netherlands did so under pressure from retail businesses, which claimed that dealing with 1- and 2-cent coins was too expensive. After a successful experiment in the town of Woerden in May 2004, retailers in the whole of the Netherlands have been permitted to round cash transactions to the nearest five-cent since September 2004.[41] Belgium passed a rounding law in February 2014,[39] but it is generally ignored.[citation needed] Ireland did so in 2015 after trialling rounding in Wexford in 2013.[38][42] In May 2017, the Italian parliament has passed a resolution to stop minting 1c and 2c coins starting 1 January 2018 as well as introducing Swedish rounding.[43][44]

This is in part due to factors such as rising metal prices: De Nederlandsche Bank calculated it would save $36 million a year by not using the smaller coins. Other countries such as Germany favoured retaining the coins due to their desire for €1.99 prices, which appear more attractive to the consumer than a €2 price.[45] Luxembourg and Malta have also declared they do not wish to remove the coins.[39][46] This is echoed by the European Central Bank itself which supports the coins, stating it allows businesses to calculate prices more exactly to attract consumers, such as €0.99.[47] According to a Eurobarometer survey of EU citizens in 2005, Germans were most sceptical about the removal of the 1c and 2c coins from complete circulation in the eurozone, but on average there was a majority for their removal (58% for the one cent coin and 52% for the two cent coin in 2005). The Belgians were most supportive of their removal.[48] A similar survey in 2017 found 64% across the Eurozone wanting their removal with prices rounded; with over 70% in Belgium, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia. Only Portugal and Latvia had a plurality in favour of retaining the coins (49% against removal, 45-6% in favour).[49]

The Commission in 2010 released its guidelines on daily life euro cash questions, to give citizens guidelines on such issues with direct implications on their daily lives. These guidelines are based on ten guiding principles. Two of these guiding principles were and still are that "No surcharges should be imposed on payments in cash" and "Member States should not adopt new rounding rules to the nearest five cent".[50]

In spring 2016 controversy arose in the Netherlands after an episode of the television program Keuringsdienst van Waarde showed that euro coins from the Netherlands and other countries are produced by the South Korean company Poongsan. This company is also a known producer of cluster munitions.[51] Cluster munitions are banned internationally by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), because of their indiscriminate and long-term effects on civilians. The CCM prohibits the use, produce, retain or transfer cluster munitions as well as assistance with these acts. After parliamentary questions were posed, the Dutch government stated that the Royal Dutch Mint had ordered around 40 million 'coin blanks' between 2011 and 2016, and that Poongsan was on a list of vetted suppliers of the European Commission's Mint Directors Working Group.[52] Since then, both the Royal Dutch Mint and the Norwegian Mint have excluded Poongsan as a coin blank supplier due to its involvement in cluster munitions.[53] In the European Parliament, questions were also raised about Poongsan's presence on the vetted list of coin blank suppliers of the European Commission's Mint Directors Working Group. However, the Commission claimed responsibility on this issue lies with the member states of the Union.[54]


what is the style of this boy by the beatles

Its composition was an attempt by Lennon [3][4] at writing a song in the style of Motown star Smokey Robinson,[5] specifically his song "I've Been Good To You", which has similar circular doo-wop chord changes, melody and arrangement. The tune and arrangement also draws from "You Don't Understand Me", a B-side to a Bobby Freeman single.[6] Paul McCartney cites the Teddy Bears' 1958 hit "To Know Him Is To Love Him" as also being influential.[4] Lennon, McCartney, and George Harrison join together to sing an intricate three-part close harmony in the verses and refrain (originally the middle eight was conceived as a guitar solo, but altered during the recording process)[7] and a similar song writing technique is exercised in later Beatles songs, such as "Yes It Is" and "Because". The song, in D major, revolves around a 1950s-style I-vi-ii-V doo-wop sequence in 12/8 time before moving to the harmonically complex middle eight (G-F#7-Bm-D7-G-E7-A-A7) and back again for the final verse and fade-out. [4] William Mann describes the song as, "harmonically...one of their most intriguing, with its chains of pandiatonic clusters" [8]

This Boy

"This Boy" is a song by English rock band the Beatles, written by John Lennon[3][4] (credited to Lennon–McCartney). It was released in November 1963 as the B-side of the British Parlophone single "I Want to Hold Your Hand". It also appears as the third track on side one of the 1964 U.S album Meet the Beatles!. The Beatles performed it live on 16 February 1964 for their second appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show.

"This Boy" was remastered for compact disc by George Martin and released in 1988 on the Past Masters, Volume One compilation. On 9 September 2009 it was re-released on the two CD set Past Masters, as part of the remastering of the original Beatles' catalogue, and was included in The Beatles Stereo Box Set and in The Beatles in Mono box set.

An instrumental version of "This Boy", orchestrated by George Martin, is used as the incidental music during Ringo Starr's towpath scene in the film A Hard Day's Night. The piece, under the title, "Ringo's Theme (This Boy)" was released as a single — but failed to chart in the UK — on 7 August 1964 with "And I Love Her" on the B Side,[9] although it did reach number 53 in the American Top 100 later that year. It was also included on Martin’s Parlophone album Off the Beatle Track and the EP Music From A Hard Day’s Night by the George Martin Orchestra, released 19 February 1965. It was also included on the American A Hard Day's Night soundtrack album.

The Beatles recorded "This Boy" on 17 October 1963. On the same day they recorded "I Want To Hold Your Hand"; the group's first fan club Christmas single, and a version of "You Really Got A Hold On Me".

They recorded fifteen takes of "This Boy" followed by two overdubs. The song was recorded with a rounded ending, although it was faded out during a mixing session on 21 October.[10] Two takes were joined together to make the final master, with the edit between the middle eight and final verse (1:28).[4]

Alternative recordings have also been officially released. A live version performed on Two of a Kind in 1963 was released on Anthology 1 and two incomplete takes from the original recording were released as a track on the single Free as a Bird.

Robson & Jerome covered the song on their self-titled 1995 album; by a remarkable coincidence, this was #1 on the UK Albums Chart in the same week the Beatles' Anthology 1, which features a version of the song, peaked at #2.[11]

The Smithereens covered the song on their 2007 album Meet The Smithereens!

Algernon Cadwallader covered the song on "Cover Up - A Covers Compilation" by Biff Swenson.[12]