666 



ICHTHYOLOGY. 



U : .tory. These circumstances indicate the infant state of the 

 '"""Y"""*' science, and point out the propriety of an anatomical 

 investigation of the whole tribe. 



We are still in want of accurate representations 

 of many species of fishes. The figures which we 

 meet with, often bear but a remote resemblance to 

 the objects themselves. When a painter, ignorant of 

 natural history, is employed to delineate a fish, (or 

 any other animal), he is apt to overlook the most 

 important characters, unless these are very obvious. 

 He rests satisfied if he produces a general resem- 

 blance. Hence the peculiar shape of the fins is often 

 sacrificed to the desire of avoiding sharp angles, and 

 spots, punctures, or streaks, are omitted as useless, or 

 as spoiling the beauty of the drawing. These figures, 

 in passing afterwards through the hands of the engra- 

 ver, are still farther altered to suit professional taste, 

 so that the figures in works on natural history are of- 

 ten imperfect representations. Hence naturalists should 

 study the art of drawing, and carefully inspect the 

 strokes of the engraver, if fidelity in representation be 

 the object in view. 



'Writers on Before closing these short notices of the principal 

 British ich- writers on fishes, we propose to add a few observations 

 thyology. on tne labours of those who have contributed to the 

 advancement of British ichthyology. This branch of 

 natural history has never been very popular in Britain, 

 and at present is in a great measure neglected. Mer- 

 ret, in his Pinax rerum Naluralium Britannicarum, 

 London, 1667, is the first who arranged systematically 

 our native fishes. He distributed them into the fol- 

 lowing classes : I.Pisces pelagii squamosi. II. Pela- 

 gii Iseves. III. Marini saxatiles. IV. Squamosi in ma- 

 rietin fluminibus. V. Fluviatiles squamosi. VI. Flu- 

 viatiles laeves. He has enumerated about 76 species. 

 He acknowledges the assistance which he derived from 

 Turner in his letter to Gesner. His references are 

 chiefly to the works of Gesner and Aldrovandus ; and 

 he has added a number of provincial names. Taking 

 all circumstances into consideration, this little work de- 

 serves great praise. 



The labours of Willoughby and Ray, which we have 

 already mentioned with respect, contributed to advance 

 the science of ichthyology in this country, by the in- 

 troduction of a more determinate nomenclature, and a 

 more accurate definition of species. 



From the days of Ray until the appearance of Pen- 

 nant, no systematic British ichthyologist had appeared. 

 In the year 1776, that naturalist published his British 

 Zoology. The third volume of this work treats of our 

 native fishes, amounting to one hundred and fifty-two 

 species, exclusive of the cetacea. The system which 

 he follows is the Linnsean, with the addition of the car- 

 Ulaginei of Ray. He does not confine himself to mere 

 descriptions ; he notices the habits and uses of the par- 

 ticular species. The figures are upon the whole re- 

 spectable. This work contributed to diffuse a taste for 

 the study of zoology in this country, and still conti- 

 nues to maintain that reputation which its general ac- 

 curacy, and pleasing style, deservedly procured. A 

 second edition made its appearance two years ago, edit- 

 ed by a son of the author's. It contains a few addi- 

 tions, compiled from authentic sources. 



The Synopsis of the Natural History of Great Bri- 

 tain and Ireland, by Berkenhout, merits a place in this 

 catalogue. The first edition appeared in the year 

 1769, and the second in the year 1795. In the first 

 volume the British fishes are enumerated, amounting to 



157 species, and arranged according to the Linnaan History. 

 method. The specific characters are short, but judici- ' s "T" g 

 ously selected. 



In the year 1802, Mr Stewart of Edinburgh pub. 

 lished his Elements of Natural History, in which he 

 enumerates the British species of fishes. This work 

 has lately been revised by the author, and several new 

 species have been added to his list. 



Mr Donovan completed, in 1808, five volumes of 

 his Natural History of British Fishes. This work con- 

 tains coloured representations of 119 species. Ths 

 figures are faithful representations, and the descrip- 

 tions abound in sound criticisms and important illus- 

 trations. He is perhaps deficient in his account of the 

 external characters of the species. This production is 

 a valuable book of reference, and ought to be frequent- 

 ly consulted by the student. We may add that he has 

 swelled the list of British fishes by the discovery of 

 many new and curious species. 



The British Fauna, by Turton, was published in 

 1807, previous to the completion of the preceding 

 work. In this small volume 168 species are described. 

 It is a very usefid compilation, chiefly on account of 

 its convenient size for the pocket. 



Besides these systematic writers on British ichthyo- 

 logy, several naturalists, by describing the fishes ofpar- 

 ticular districts, have rendered important service to 

 the science. 



In the work of T. Caius De Canibus Britannia's, 

 (Lond. 1570,) contains notices respecting a few spe. 

 cies of British fishes, such as the xiphias, the tracau- 

 rus, the acus, and a few others. 



In 1684, Sir Robert Sibbald published his Prodro* 

 mus Histories Naturalis, sive Scotia Illustrate. In this 

 work the fishes of Scotland are described and enume- 

 rated ; and, considering the state of the science at the 

 time, the catalogue is an extensive one. The same au- 

 thor enlarges on the fishes of the Frith of Forth in his 

 History of Fife and Kinross. 



The topographical labours of Plott merit respectful 

 mention ; and in his Histories of Oxfordshire and Staf- 

 fordshire, he has not overlooked the fishes of these dis- 

 tricts. The history of the former county appeared in 

 1676, and that of the latter in 1686. 



In 1698, Martin published his Description of the 

 Western Islands of Scotland, in which he notices the 

 ichthyological productions of those seas, but in a very 

 cursory manner. 



Wallace, in 1700, published his Account of the Ork- 

 ney Islands, in which he noticed a few of the more 

 common fishes of that country. 



The British student of zoology must be familiar 

 with the name of Borlase. His Natural History of 

 Cornwall, published in 1758, is generally quoted as a 

 book of reference, and contributed to advance our 

 knowledge of British fishes. Several new species were 

 published for the first time from the drawings of the 

 Rev. Mr lago, minister of Loo. 



Several remarks, illustrative of Irish ichthyology, 

 appear in Rutty's Natural History of the County of 

 Dublin, 1772. Smith, in his county histories of Ker- 

 ry, Waterford, Cork, and Down, had communicated 

 previously a few imperfect notices regarding the fishes 

 of those districts. 



In the year 1811, the first volume of the Memoirs 

 of the IVernerian Natural History Society of Edinburgh 

 appeared before the public, containing two papers il- 

 lustrative of British ichthyology. The first is the pro- 

 duction of the late eminent zoologist Montagu, in which 



