15 
Bryan, Sandrart, or Houbraken, is described by Brulliot as a Flemish artist who 
flourished at the commencement of the seventeenth century, and painted landscapes 
with many animals, executed with great care, but in rather a dry manner'. Of De 
Heem, the celebrated painter of still life, it would be superfluous to say anything. We 
may conclude, then, that in this joint production the landscape and animals were 
painted by Goeimare, and the shells by De Heem. 
In this picture, which seems to have been intended as a record of rarities, the fore- 
ground represents a sea-shore from which the tide has retired, leaving empty shells of 
the following genera : — Nautilus, Pteroceras, Strombus, Triton, Pyrula, Cassis, Cyprcea, 
Conus, Mitra, Turbo, Nerita, Mytilus, Ostrea, See. Behind, on elevated ground, are two 
Ostriches ; and below, to the right of the spectator, the Dodo is represented as in the act 
of picking up something from the strand” (fig. 6). “ The head and body of the bird, 
covering an area as large as the palm of a man’s hand, are seen ; hut the legs are hidden. 
The painter of the Dodo, in my picture” (PI. I. fig. 2), “ has given the only complete 
foreshortened hack view of the bird known to me. In the Duke’s picture the head and 
body are presented to the spectator on a larger scale ; and I have nowhere seen the hood 
or ridge at the oase of the bill, from which the bird obtained the name of Cygnus cucul- 
latus, so clearly represented. Near the Dodo are a Smew and other aquatic birds, and 
further otf Hoopoes and Terns. In the distance is the ocean, with a sea-monster await- 
ing the attack of Perseus, who descends on a winged steed to the rescue of Andromeda 
chained to a rock. Those who have had occasion to describe and figure new species of 
Testacea, know how difficult it is to find a draughtsman who can give a correct design of 
the shell to be represented. Unless the artist, like Mr. G. B. Sowerby, jun., is aware of the 
internal structure of the shell, and acquainted with its organization, a lamentable failure 
is generally the result. In the picture before us, with one exception — and even in that 
the specimen may have been distorted — so accurate was the eye of the painter, that if 
he had been aware of the organization of each shell — knowledge which he probably had 
not — he could not have represented the objects more correctly. The NautilP, Strombus 
gigas, Triton, and Pyrula are painted with great breadth and power, and aU are drawn 
and coloured with wonderful truth ; indeed a conchologist may name every species. 
One of the Nautili is partially uncoated, to show the nacre, and the other dissected, to 
display the concamerations. None of the shells have the epidermis, and all are of the 
natural size. The artificial condition of these subjects, and especially of the Nautili, is, 
it must be allowed, rather out of place in an assemblage of testaceans left on the sands 
by the retired tide, unless we are to suppose that the sea-nymphs had been amusing 
themselves by polishing the specimens and displaying the internal structure of one of 
them ; but this very treatment shows that the designs were accurately made from real 
objects then considered as rarities. With the exception of the Dodo, none of the 
natural objects represented are now rare. The shells, especially those whose habitats 
“ ' I am indebted to Mr. Russell for this information.” 
Nautilus pcmpilius.” 
