Historical Account of TestaccologicalWriters. 123 



iELIAN 



does not omit the Testaceous tribe in his work Wspi Zwwv i^iOTY\roQ\ 

 but that pliilosopher'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 vaoue 

 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 Avork 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, &c. but 

 they are borrowed chiefly from Aristotle and Pliny, and are re- 

 plete with the absurd and superstitious notions of the times. The 

 3'ear following 



ALBERTUS MAGNUS 



published liis volume " de Animalibus," &c. in which are similar 

 scattered descriptions of various shells, without any scientific 

 order, or much original information. 



ADAM LONICERUS, 



in his " Historice Nattiralis Opus novum," introduces fio-ures of 

 shells, and describes a few species under the heads of Cochkce and 

 Concha: but he is extremely concise ; a circumstance for which 



R 2 he 



