ON CEPHALOPODA. 307 
if is certainly an octopus, with simple arms and a single 
range of suckers. He speaks of the shell which now consti- 
tutes the genus nautilus only as a cochleid, vulgarly called 
margaritiferous, and blames Belon strongly, and in a very 
unsuitable manner, for having supposed that this could be a 
species of nautilus. 
Gesner, in his article nautilus, compares, according to his 
custom, with much care, all that has been said by the ancient 
Greek and Latin authors, adding what he found in Belon and 
Rondelet, as well as their figures. But he also mentions, in 
his corollary, that he had received from an English physician 
named Falconer, the figure of a molluscous animal, the shell 
of which was evidently that of Belon’s second species. 
Aldrovandus copies Gesner very closely, and his abridger, 
Jonston, of course does the same. 
Bonnani (Recreatio mentis, p. 88.) adopts the opinion of 
Belon with less hesitation, and gives two good figures, the 
one of Aristotle’s first species, and the other of that which 
Belon thinks to be the second. The first, he tells us, has the 
name of polpo moscardine or moscarolo in Italy, and that it is 
found in the Adriatic sea, on the Italian coast, where the 
fishermen catch it along with the sepiz, near the rocks upon 
the shore, where it frequently seeks its food. 
Rumphius, the only author, except the physician cited by 
Gesner, who has seen the animals of both shells regarded 
hitherto as nautili, again confounds under this name the 
species without partitions or chambers and those which have 
them. But his denominations were not derived from this 
character, which was never properly marked until after the 
dissertation of Breynius, de Polythalamis, and he distin- 
guishes three or four species, in only one of which, belonging 
to his second section, does he describe the animal. 
The majority of authors on conchology at this period did 
the same as the foregoing, until Gualtieri, enlightened doubt- 
br 
