ICHTHYOLOGY. 



660 



Hiitocy. The reader will perceive, that the primary characters 

 '*~~Y~**' are those of Ray. The secondary characters, depend- 

 ing on the structure of the appendages of the gills, may 

 L> Ccpede. ^ ^njjdered as in a great measure his own ; while 

 those of a third rank belong to the Linnaean system. It 

 may perhaps surprise an English reader to be informed, 

 that of the thirty orders which are here constituted, 

 only seventeen can be employed at present, the remain. 

 ing fifteen having no examples in nature. To these 

 last orders, I have added a cypher in the synoptical 

 view. 



Every ichthyologist will allow that many fishes must 

 exist in nature which have never come under the inspec- 

 tion of the naturalist ; many links in the chain are still 

 wanting ; so that our systems, for the present, must be 

 imperfect. But we can assign no other motive, in thus 

 constructing orders which have no ascertained exist- 

 ence, than a desire to anticipate discovery, and to ex- 

 hibit a confident reliance on the perfection of the sys- 

 tematic principles employed. 



The characters which he uses in the construction of 

 hi* genera, are derived from various sources. Thus, 

 his genus Prionotus, is separated from that of Trigla, 

 by the serrated spine* between the dorsal fins of the 

 former. Serrasalmus, is separated from Salmo, in con- 

 sequence of a serrated abdomen. The number of the 

 dorsal fin* separates Lutanus from Centropoums. The 

 sue of the dorsal fins forms the distinction between 

 Bodianus and Tamianotus. It is rather singular that 

 Uu* anthor take* DO notice of the number of rays in the 

 gill flap a* a generic character, while the presence of 

 that organ fumube* him with one of his primary cha- 



The name* of hi* genera are in many instances ex- 

 ctpttonable, and appear to have been constructed in 

 ' *> of the acknowledged rules of the science 

 The following maxim of Artedi, \omina 

 , ex tuto nomine gtnerico fracto et allero inlegro 

 trulenl, is overlooked in the following ex- 



i of hybrid names, among many which might be 

 produced : Gobie*ox, Scomberesex, and Murwnoblen- 

 na. The propriety of adhering to this rule of Artedi, 

 matt appear evident, when we consider, that such 

 name* indicate ambiguity or doubt with respect to 

 their characters, " innuunt cnim ambiguitatem quart - 

 dan, ut incertum sit ad quodnam gentu piscis proprie 

 pertinat.'' Another rule in ichthyology, " \omina 

 ica detinienlia in oides non prcbari debent," ii 

 equally despised, although Artedi justifies its value 

 by saying, " quia aliod genus innuunt vel aliud allu- 

 dunt, cut hoc in oidet desinens, simile erit, et nullam 

 ulteiioreui originem vel cao*am suar denomination is 

 habenl" Thus, I. icrp.de has the following genera : 

 Mogfl Mngiloides, Gobtus Gobioides, Coryphaena Cory. 



' 'es, Scomber Scoroberoides, Murxna Munr- 

 Therc is a third rule given by Artedi, and 



entitled to the attention of the ichthyologist, 

 which La Cepede likewise overlooks. " Notntna gene- 

 ric*, qtut men nut origini* lMli*<f vel Grteca proteri- 

 hintttr." Thus we have the following barbarous names, 

 Mu^mmmt, fanned from Misgnme, the Bavarian pro- 

 vincial name of Cobitis fossilis of Linnxus, and the 

 only known specie* of the genus Makaira, the name 

 of a fish known at Rochclle. There is likewise a ge- 

 nus Ompoke, a name attached to a dried fish in the 

 Dutch collection, and provincial. The similarity in 

 the sound, between many of the genera of this author, 

 will inevitably lead to confusion. Thus we have Ho- 

 locentrus and Holecanlhiu, Pomacentro* and Poma> 



VOL. II. PART II. 



(II ll:\ 



which L 



canthus, Callionymus and Calliomorus, Acanthurus and History. 

 Acanthopodus, and a host of other genera with names 

 so nearly alike, that we might be led to suppose the 

 author formed them purposely to perplex. We cannot 

 close our observations on the genera of this author, 

 without adding, that all generic names taken from ob- 

 jects in the other classes of nature, ought to have been 

 rejected ; such, for example, as Eques, Gallus, Hy- 

 drargirus. 



In the construction of his species, there is perhaps 

 too strong a desire to increase their number, in the ab- 

 sence of all prominent characters. This, we fear, has 

 been the case in the genus Salmo, Labrus, and some 

 others, where the limits of the species are ill defined. 

 He has been too liberal in employing the names of in- 

 dividuals, as trivial names to his species. Thus we 

 have three different species in the system named in 

 honour of his wife, who does not appear to have been 

 particularly attached to any branch of natural history. 

 We can have no objections to an author dedicating hi-* 

 work to his wife, as La Cepede has ('.one ; but we ob- 

 ject to the naming of species, ascertained by the la- 

 bours of others, in honour of any female friend. In 

 France, an author may gain credit for his sensibility 

 and love, by so doing, but to our colder temperament, 

 it seems to be affectation. In many instances, our au- 

 thor changes the received trivial names, bestowing upon 

 them new ones of his own, without even assigning any 

 reason for doing so. This takes place in almost every 

 extensive genus of the system, and merits the se- 

 verest censure. The French naturalists, it is 1 true, 

 have not scrupled to violate established maxims in sci- 

 ence, in order to form a French system. This seems to 

 have been the reason why La Cepede abandoned the prin- 

 ciples of Artedi in the construction of his genera, and dis- 

 regarded the dogmas of the Linneean school. Hut the 

 French systems, like all others, must submit to the test 

 of sound principles; and when tried by these, whoever 

 shall attempt to restore to its Linnaean purity this de- 

 partment of zoology, must cancel multitudes of the 

 names of La Cepede. We may add, that the descriptions 

 are often swelled by vague analogies, and are in too 

 many instances destitute of precision. 



These remarks have extended perhaps too far; but 

 as the system is at present the most popular in Europe, 

 we have judged it expedient to state our undisguised 

 sentiments as to its merits. It abounds in faults, but it 

 is not destitute of excellence. A vast mass of facts is 

 collected, many species are for the first time described, 

 many new characters are unfolded, and the work upon 

 the whole is the moat complete view of ichthyology ex- 

 tant. Figures of the new or rarer species are given. 

 These, however, are inferior in every respect to those 

 of Hloch. 



The ichthyological part of the Genet al Zoology by ghaw. 

 I)r Shaw, appeared in two volumes, in the years 

 1803-4. We sincerely regret that it is not in our 

 power to bestow any praise on this work. The text 

 is a very meagre compilation, chiefly from the writings 

 of Bloch and I A Cepede; and the figures which accom- 

 pany the work, are principally copied from the same 

 sources. 



In the preceding historical review of ichthyological 

 writers, in which we have endeavoured to mark the pro- 

 gress of the science, the reader must have perceived the 

 great difference of opinion, with respect to the value of 

 the characters employed in classification. The organs of 

 motion are regarded by some as holding the first rank, 

 while those of respiration are preferred l>y other-. 

 4P 



