PROGRESS OF ICHTHYOLOGY. 423 



That this system was a true first approximation to a solution of the 

 problem, appears to be allowed by naturalists. Although, says Cuvier, 9 

 there are in it no genera well defined and well limited, still in many 

 places the species are brought together very naturally, and in such 

 a way that a few words of explanation would suffice to form, from the 

 groups thus presented to us, several of the genera which have since 

 been received. Even in botany, as we have seen, genera were hardl) 

 maintained, with any degree of precision, till the binary nomenclature 

 of Linnaeus made this division a matter of such immense convenience. 



The amount of this convenience, the value of a bi.ef and sure 

 nomenclature, had not yet been duly estimated. The work of Wil- 

 loughby forms an epoch, 7 and a happy epoch, in the history of ichthy- 

 ology ; for the science, once systematized, could distinguish the new 

 from the old, arrange methodically, describe clearly. Yet, because 

 Willoughby had no nomenclature of his own, and no fixed names for 

 his genera, his immediate influence was not great. I will not attempt 

 to trace this influence in succeeding authors, but proceed to the next 

 important step in the progress of system. 



Improvement of the System. Artedi. Peter Artedi was a country- 

 man and intimate friend of Linnaeus ; and rendered to ichthyology 

 nearly the same services which Linnseus rendered to botany. In his 

 Philoso2ihia Ichthyologica, he analysed 8 all the interior and exterior 

 parts of animals ; he created a precise terminology for the different 

 forms of which these parts are susceptible ; he laid down rules for 

 the nomenclature of genera and species ; besides his improvements of 

 the subdivisions of the class. It is impossible not to be struck with 

 the close resemblance between these steps, and those which are due to 

 the Fundamenta Botanica. The latter work appeared in 1736, the 

 former was published by Linnaeus, after the death of the author, in 

 1738 ; but Linnaeus had already, as early as 1735, made use of Arte- 

 di's manuscripts in the ichthyological part of his Systema Nature. 

 We cannot doubt that the two young naturalists (they were nearly of 

 the same age), must have had a great influence upon each other's views 

 and labors ; and it would be difficult now to ascertain what portion of 

 the peculiar merits of the Linnaean reform was derived from Artedi. 

 But we may remark that, in ichthyology at least, Artedi appears to 

 have been a naturalist of more original views and profounder philosophy 

 than his friend and editor, who afterwards himself took up the subject 



9 Cuvier, p. 57. T p. 58. B p. 20. 



