CONCHOLOGY. 



125 



Hcations adapted to every stage of the study, that 

 those who have leisure to pursue it may take it up in 

 any part of its progress. We flatter ourselves that we 

 have, as concisely as the nature of science will admit, 

 given an outline likely to prove serviceable to the 

 student, without entering abstrusely into that portion 

 of it which can only be interesting to the more finish- 

 ed naturalist. Having, in this place, confined our- 

 selves more particularly to shells, as objects detached 

 from their parents, much more remains to be said of 

 them as properly connected with the animals; and this 

 will be attempted under the articles MOLLUSCA and 

 MALACOLOGY. We will now proceed to give a rapid 

 sketch of the history of the science, or at least that part 

 of it which includes the arrangement of shells alone, 

 without any or very little reference to the animals. 

 In which point of view, nearly all the naturalists of 

 former times have written, and it may not be found 

 useless or uninteresting to name the most celebrated 

 authors, beginning from a very remote period of time 

 down to that at which the science has assumed a new 

 and higher order of claim to the attention of man- 

 kind. 



That the study of natural history, and Conchology 

 as a part of it, was not deemed beneath the notice of 

 philosophers and statesmen in the enlightened ages 

 of Greece and Rome, is proved by the valuable 

 works still extant, the earliest of which is that of 

 Aristotle, who flourished 322 years before the birth 

 of Christ. It may be deemed a precious monument 

 of accurate observation, and justly entitles him to 

 the immortal name of the father of natural history. 

 Like every other of his writings, this branch exhibits 

 profound wisdom, and, even to the present day, his 

 outlines of a systematic arrangement have been fol- 

 lowed, and many of the genera of shells retained by 

 succeeding authors. He first established the two 

 great natural orders of univalves and bivalves, viewing 

 shells, precisely as they are now considered, to be 

 testaceous bodies, consisting of so many pieces or parts. 

 The first were therefore termed Monothyra, the second 

 Dithyra. To these he added a third order, in which 

 were included the turbinated shells. Of these three 

 orders he commenced a generic arrangement, dis- 

 tinguishing between their terrestrial or aquatic 

 habitats, and even the immobility or locomotive 

 power of the different species. These he separated 

 into the ciiietica or acineta. When we consider the 

 period at which this great man existed, and the 

 isolated nature of his labours, comparing them with 

 I the information he possessed in natural history, we 

 may be truly astonished at his sagacity and wisdom. 

 Though the acquirement of human knowledge is 

 slow and progressive, Aristotle's Ostracodermata pre- 

 sents a valuable scheme of shells, and the sound well 

 defined basis of all subsequent systems. Nor was the 

 Macedonian philosopher the only great man of anti- 

 quity whose mind was alive to the study of natural 

 listory, and whose more important labours were 

 liversified by its inviting charms. Pliny, -(Elian, 

 A.theniuus, and Cicero, were each of them enthusiastic 

 laturalists, and have left valuable proofs of their 

 iccurate observation of nature's productions, particu- 

 arly in that branch we are now treating of. But this 

 I tudy, like all other liberal pursuits, was neglected in 

 he darker era that succeeded, at least no evidence 

 o the contrary has survived to this period ; but in 

 fter ages, when the mists of Gothic ignorance, which 

 lad so long obscured the western horizon, dispersed, 



the light of science dawned, and Conchology not 

 only revived, but was encouraged by men eminent 

 "or learning and a superiority of mental acquirement, 

 the admiration and envy of past centuries. Pliny, 

 who lived in times more favourable to the cultivation 

 of science (A.D. 80.), added but little to the informa- 

 tion he derived from the writings of Aristotle. He 

 certainly has added considerably to the number of 

 species at that period described. The shores of the 

 Roman empire, the Mediterranean, and Red Sea, 

 presenting a rich field for the enterprising concholo- 

 jist, he described, with great fidelity, the form and 

 external aspect of shells, in which he has been 

 followed by succeeding naturalists. But his arrange- 

 ment was unphilosophical his descriptions unsatis- 

 factory and he discovered but little matter import- 

 ant to the science beyond that which had long before 

 been pointed out by Aristotle. Passing over the 

 dark ages succeeding Roman greatness, in which 

 science was degraded and ignorance deified, we 

 find, to the end of the fifteenth century, little to 

 instruct or interest us on this subject. Vicentius, in 

 1494, treats of the genera Murex, Ostrea, and some 

 S'dices, but without any systematic arrangement ; 

 and he has done no more than borrow from his pre- 

 decessors, adding most largely from the superstitious 

 absurdities of his days. In the sixteenth century, 

 Belen, Rondeletius, and other authors, added some- 

 thing more to the information transmitted from the 

 earlier ages. Their works, however, merely described 

 new species, or pointed out what they considered a 

 more natural arrangement of shells, many of them, 

 however, venturing upon a general systematic classi- 

 fication materially different from the first outline 

 sketched by Aristotle. We will therefore come to 

 that period when Daniel Major may be considered 

 as the first author who really occupied himself with 

 a distribution of shells into a systematic form. This 

 will be found in an Appendix to a Treatise on the 

 Genus Purpura, by F. Columna, in the German 

 language, under the title of Ostracologia in Ordinem 

 Redactn, printed at Kiel in 1675. This appendix 

 contains synoptic tables pointing out a natural asso- 

 ciation of genera established on the species observed 

 by Columna, and consequently very few in number. 

 To Major we are indebted for the division of uni- 

 valves and multivalves, among which he places the 

 bivalves. 



In 1681, our countryman, Grew, in his Museum 

 llegium, a descriptive catalogue of the Royal Society's 

 collection, has published a systematic and synoptic 

 table of the genera of shells, in which he includes all 

 the testaceous envelopes of animals, and, without posi- 

 tively employing the present received terms of the 

 science, established divisions of the single, double, 

 and multiple shells, corresponding with our univalve, 

 bivalve, and multivalve genera. In the first, he 

 separates such as are rolled on a fictitious axis from 

 those not so constructed ; these are again divided 

 into the species whose spires are visible or not, as 

 in the Nautilus, Cowry, &c. By this arrangement 

 it is obvious that Grew distinctly pointed out those 

 clear indications of animal structure forming the 

 greater number of our present genera. 



Sibbald, in 1684, in his Scotia Illustrata, goes back 

 nearly to the divisions of Aristotle, principally con- 

 sidering the habitat of the shells, dividing them into 

 terrestrial and aquatic, and the latter into marine and 

 fluviatile species. 



