exl Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [NS., XIV, 
Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans, not to mention the Red Sea and 
the Mediterranean. 
In the systematic study of fishes we have mainly two 
classes of workers: explorers and compilers, as the result of 
whose activities we have (1) univers] catalogues, (2) works on 
special groups (monographs), and (3) works on local faunas — 
the investigation of particular branches of Ichthyology, such as — 
on morphology, embryology, distribution in space and time, — 
etec., etc. © 
From what we have already said it is clear that the study 
of the works of Belon, Willougby, Ray and Linnaeus are ® — 
much necessary for the study of Indian Ichthyology as those of f 
Russell, Buchanan Hamilton, Day and Alcock, and in the list 
that I am going to lay before you I shall endeavour to include 
the main works on Ichthyology which have to be consulted in 
order to understand properly the true relationship of the Indian 
fishes either direct or remote. eo 
It has been truly said that the commencement of the history 
of Ichthyology coincides with that of Zoology. One cant 
back to Aristotle (384—322 B.C.) for a scientific appreciation 
the true definition of fish—nor was he less interested in 
guishing between facts and fables of the mysterious East. 
number of fishes, known personally to Aristotle, seems ae 
been about 115, all of which are, however, inhabitants of the 
Aegean Sea. 
In 1553 Pierre Belon (1518—64) published 7 octavo volun 
the Mediterranean Sea were described with tolerable figures” 
n 1554 Gs 
really the work of Willoughby with additions by Ray. 
work 420 species were recorded, and students of Indian 
Petrus Artedi (1705—35), who has been justly called @ 
of Ichthyology. He was born in Sweden and was 4 fellow ae 
of Linnaeus at Upsala. Artedi devoted his short life 
the age of twenty-nine was drowned as the f 
accident in one of the Dutch Canals. His manus | 
fortunately rescued and was edited and published °Y 
