Historical Account of Testaceological Writers. 
123 
iELIAN 
does not omit the Testaceous tribe in his work lis pi Zwwv i$ioty)to£ : 
but that philosopher s knowledge of the habits of these animals 
was of course very limited, and the chapters dedicated to such 
subjects are, therefore, very concise. It ought, perhaps, to be 
mentioned, that the distribution of his matter is still more vague 
than that of his predecessors, and much superstition is mixed 
with it. 
After the dark ages, one of the earliest writers on the subject 
of natural history was 
VINCENTIUS 
(a Dominican monk of Beauvais) ; but he does not treat of any 
branch of that science otherwise than specifically, attempting no 
general arrangement, nor dividing his work otherwise than into 
books and chapters. His " Speculum Naturce" in the vast com- 
pass of its curious matter, contains descriptions of a few of the 
more remarkable shells, as the murex, purpura, ostrea, Sec. but 
they are borrowed chiefly from Aristotle and Pliny, and are re- 
plete with the absurd and superstitious notions of the times. The 
year following 
ALBERTUS MAGNUS 
published his volume " de AnimaUbus" &c. in which are similar 
scattered descriptions of various shells, without any scientific 
order, or much original information. 
ADAM LONICERUS, 
in his " Historic Naturalis Opus novum" introduces figures of 
shells, and describes a few species under the heads of Cochlea and 
Concha: but he is extremely concise ; a circumstance for which 
n 2 he 
