30 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [XOV. 16, 



of the science of natural history have emanated. Something 

 over two thousand years ago, this wonderful man was born; to 

 be exact, three hundred and eighty-four years before the Chris- 

 tian era. 



The rise of zoology as a study dates from the gift to the 

 world of his famous "Natural History," in which he first sought 

 to define, by the precision of language, those more ])rominent 

 and comprehensive groups of the animal kingdom, which, being 

 founded in Nature, are exempt from tlie influence of time and 

 the mutability of learning. Had this extraordinary man left 

 ns no other memorial of his talents than his researches in 

 zoolog}^, he would still be looked upon as one of the greatest 

 philosophers of ancient Greece, even in its highest and brightest 

 age. His eloquence and depth of thought are well known, as 

 manifest in voluminous writings. 



The deatli of this great ]ihiloso})her and fatlier of our science 

 was the decline and death of natural history in the Grecian era. 

 He left no one to follow in his line of study; stiil less to tlirow 

 additional light upon realms that his prescient genius had but 

 glanced upon. 



From this decline of Grecian learning to the partial revival 

 among the Romans, a long period of darkness prevailed. Tiiat 

 the tenets of this great teacher, entertained in the murky 

 atmosphere of ignorance, followed by intervals of thousands 

 of years of comparative darkness and fluctuating intelligence, 

 sliould have lived until tlie present time, is the best evidence 

 of their soundness, and the surest test of the author's intellectual 

 pre-eminence. 



The zoology of Aristotle in its initial classification being cor- 

 rect, was therefore stable, nnalterable, and destined to be per- 

 petuated. The great scholar presented his knowledge forcil)ly 

 and earnestly, diffusing it at the same time most efliciently by 

 precepts, and admonition to prosecute individual investigation. 

 This knowledge did not advance beyond the recognition of genera 

 and species. More general distinctions were not known. It was 

 tlie fashion in those days, and long subsequently, to name a form 

 and designate another which resembled it specifically, the "sec- 

 ond sort." 



Rome and the middle ages did not contribute to the stock of 

 learning. Even Pliny, whose name is so identified with the 

 study of nature, scarcely added a fact of importance. The na- 

 turalists of the'sixteenth century accomplished little, though 

 they contributed to a more general distribution of the knowledge 

 then known. Systematic zoology was yet in infancy. • During 

 the long period extending to the days of Linnaeus, little of im- 

 portance was added. This distinguished zoologist, like Aristotle 



