42 MEMOIR OP 



would make tliis statement, if literally true, not a 

 little distressing. It is so scarce, that for a long 

 time >ve were not able to Liy hands upon it, nor 

 even to hear where a copy could he procured. It 

 is, moreover, true, that much of its valuable infor- 

 mation has been filtrated, so to speak, into Aldro- 

 vandi's, and other more recent treatises. In addition. 

 Baron Cuvier supplies on this point a valuable ob- 

 servation. He remarks, that as the author borrows 

 many of his details from the ancients, and as these 

 passages do not always refer to the same species, 

 much caution is required in consulting them. Upon 

 the whole, however, the classical Ichthyologist 

 cannot but esteem the work, and highly prize the 

 opportunity it affords him of clearing up many obscu- 

 rities which hang over the earlier portion of the 

 history of the science. 



In De Bure's " Bihliographie" No. 171 6? it is 

 said that the Roman is the only edition of this 

 work ; but this statement would appear to be incor- 

 rect, as we find it stated in the Biographie Univer- 

 selle^ that there was a reprint at Venice in the 

 years 1 600-2. The volume, however, is notAnth- 

 standing undoubtedly scarce. 



Although Salviani devoted a large share of his 

 attention to Ichthyology and other departments of 

 Natural History, we are not to imagine that he 

 confined it to these branches of science. We have 

 read, that he assiduously practised his profession, 

 both publicly and privately, at Rome; and we 

 have learned, too, that he taught the class of 



