Historical Account of Testaceological Writers. 125 



some of these figures were omitted, and some new ones intro- 

 duced, so as to render the whole number fourteen, and they are 

 considerably larger than the former. In the Lyons edition of 

 1572, by des Moulins, some of the species contained in that of 

 1534 are introduced (but with the omission of one contained in 

 the edition last mentioned), and the figures are all original. They 

 were copied by the Venetian publishers in 1621, but were in 

 some instances transposed and reversed. Bauhin, in his publi- 

 cation of this work, copied pretty accurately that of 1572, so far 

 as the figures are concerned ; as did also Pinet, who, however, 

 reduced the size of them very considerably, and inserted only ten 

 species. The edition of 1683 we have never seen. Matthiolus is 

 pretty copious in his descriptions of the shells mentioned by 

 Dioscorides, but they are derived chiefly from the perusal of 

 authors whom we have already mentioned. 



GESNER. 



In 1558 appeared the work of Conrad Gesner " rle Pisciufn et 

 Aquatilium Animantium Historia," in Avhich may be found all that 

 was known by the antients, and by this author's immediate pre- 

 decessors, relative to Testacea. Well might Boerhaave bestow on 

 Gesner the appellation of " Monstrum eruditionis" — an appella- 

 tion to which this indefatigable writer was justly entitled, for the 

 extent of his learning, and the excellence of his comments on the 

 writings of antiquity. His figures of shells are, for the most part, 

 extremely rude ; but, in general, the species intended to be re- 

 presented may be pretty readily recognized, and they are accom- 

 panied by very ample descriptions. In the " /co/ies Animalium" of 

 this author we find several shells of the Indian and Arabian seas, 

 which had never been figured before, and which prove that he 

 was not content, even in a part of his work comparatively so in- 

 considerable. 



