112 Analysis of Scientific Books. 
the opinion of Andrza, who says that it is a fresh-water formation, 
against that of Brongniart. We do not intend to decide between dis- 
agreeing doctors, but it is a justice to our readers, if they are readers 
also of Monsicur Blainville’s Ichthyolithology, to dissect these para= 
graphs for their use. 
Eight species of fish are described as being found here. Of two 
of these, Monsieur Blainville makes new genera, by the names of 
Anenchelum and Palzeorhynchum ; the others are supposed to belong 
to Clupea and Zeus. The first of these was formerly imagined to be 
aneel; and although that opinion was probably wrong, we cannot 
see, how, from the miserable evidence which the fragments are ad- 
mitted to afford, itis possible to make a new genus for it. But this 
naturalist finds less difficulty in constructing a genus out of a fin or 
a tail, than Linnzeus did with the whole living races before him : 
according to the well-known adage, ‘‘ Qui ad pauca respiciunt de 
facili judicant.” Here is the way, for example, in which Paleeorhyn- 
chum (old Snout, for the benefit of the unlearned) is made. 
“ Quoique cet Ichthyolite, dont nous n’avons vu que la figure de la 
partie anterieure, dans l’Herbarium diluvianum tab. 9, fig. 6, nous 
soit trop insuffisament connu pour appuyer notre opinion, il ne nous 
paroit nullement probable que ce soit notre aiguille ; (sox bellone,) 
ainsi donc, jusqu’ 4 des circonstances plus favorables, nous propo- 
serons de la designer provisoirement sous le nom de Palzorhynque 
de Glaris.””’ We shall really be glad to know how such trifling as 
this can conduce to the study of ichthyology, or geology, or any 
other Ology in the whole circle of the sciences, 
Scheuchzer takes another of these fishes for a bleak ; not an un= 
likely conclusion, if this same deposit contains ferns; but our author 
chooses to make it a new clupea. A fourth was esteemed a pike, 
and this also he makes a clupea; which judgment being deduced, 
not from a specimen, but from a figure by Knorr, it is very satisfac-~ 
tory to be informed that it is uncertain whether that appertains to the 
rock of Glaris or not. On such principles as this, we are likely soon 
to abound in Ichthyolitologists and Ichthyolitologies. There is a 
third clupea, with a new title also; all of which is matter of course, 
since it was predetermined that this was a marine formation. 
Next comes the genus Zeus, of which he finds three new species. 
To show how satisfactorily these points are settled, in the first place, 
the first species is determined to belong to Glaris, not because it was- 
found there, but because it lies ina similar slate: as if similar rocks 
of all kinds were not found all over the world. This may very well 
be a marine fish, if he pleases ; but how does it follow that it has any 
thing to do with Glaris, or that it proves this to be a marine deposit ? 
As to its own characters, it has ‘* des rapports avec le Zeus, ou genres 
voisins ; mais c’est ce qu’on ne peut assurer, parce que la téte toute 
entiere manque.” Then “ toujours est il constant que c’est un poisson 
marin.” Very possible. And so for the others. 
