PROGRESS OF ICHTHYOLOGY. 397 



acanthopterygian, holds a place in the best recent 

 arrangements. 



That this system was a true first approximation 

 to a solution of the problem, appears to be allowed 

 by naturalists. Although, says Cuvier 6 , there are in 

 it no genera well defined and well limited, still in 

 many places the species are brought together very 

 naturally, and in such a way that a few words of 

 explanation would suffice to form, from the groups 

 thus presented to us, several of the genera which 

 have since been received. Even in botany, as we 

 have seen, genera were hardly maintained with any 

 degree of precision, till the binary nomenclature 

 of Linnaeus made this division a matter of such 

 immense convenience. 



The amount of this convenience, the value of a 

 brief and sure nomenclature, had not yet been duly 

 estimated. The work of Willoughby forms an epoch 7 , 

 and a happy epoch, in the history of ichthyology ; 

 for the science, once systematized, could distinguish 

 the new from the old, arrange methodically, describe 

 clearly. Yet, because Willoughby had no nomencla- 

 ture of his own, and no fixed names for his genera, 

 his immediate influence was not great. I will not 

 attempt to trace this influence in succeeding authors, 

 but proceed to the next important step in the 

 progress of system. 



Improvement of the System. Artedi. Peter 

 Artedi was a countryman and intimate friend of 

 Cuvier, p. 57. ' p- 58. 



