"^ HISTORY OF ICHTHYOLOGY. 59 



racters now found to be of much importance^ we must 

 pronounce this the most valuable ichthyological system 

 that had then appeared. It is not^ like others in differ- 

 ent branches of zoology, a servile copy of the Linnaean 

 divisions, but numerous others are defined for the first 

 time : and when we look back to what systematic ich- 

 thyology was before, and what it became by the labours 

 of Lacepede, no one can in fairness deny but that a 

 great and important advance in this science had been 

 effected. No naturalist can hope to achieve more than 

 this, however great may be his abilities; and we do not, 

 therefore, understand upon what ground so much cen- 

 sure has recently been cast upon the works of this dis- 

 tinguished Frenchman by some of his own countrymen. 

 Lacepede's generic names, indeed, are destitute of 

 euphony; but this is secondary, and can easily be reme- 

 died; send numerous errors may, no doubt, be found in 

 such a vast undertaking : but we contend again, that 

 these errors were inevitable, and resulted more from the 

 paucity of his materials, and the inaccuracy of those 

 who had gone before him, than from any deficiency in 

 his powers of discrimination. Such errors might be 

 pardoned half a century ago, but are totally inexcusable 

 in the present day. Certain it is, however, that Lace- 

 pede's Ichthyology will always be a standard authority, 

 even for his supposed errors ; and it will be found by 

 those who have occasion to consult them, that he is by 

 no means chargeable with several that have been of late 

 attributed to him. The figures, on the other hand, 

 although well engraved, are, in general, very deficient 

 in accuracy ; the major part being either copies, or 

 drawn by artists who were totally ignorant of the sci- 

 entific details of their subject. It is certain, however, 

 that the work had a great and almost immediate effect 

 in awakening attention to this long neglected branch of 

 zoology. The interval between the respective works of 

 Bloch and Lacepede comprised a period of near twelve 

 years, in which, with the exception of a number of 

 valuable anatomical dissertations, nothing of material 



