87 
definitely the question of ARTEDI'S sole authorship, but 
it is still more clearly proved by what ARTEDI himself 
wrote in the Preface he indited in London, that is to 
say before he met LINN^US in Leyden. We find there 
that ARTEDI gives a brief account of what his work is 
to contain, and writes in one place as follows: "I then 
remarked that no ichthyologist had up to that time 
ever differentiated Genera clearly, nor described their 
characters, nor marked off Species"; he then goes on 
to relate that he has been at very great pains to exam- 
ine fishes throughout their structure, for the purpose 
of detecting the methods by which generic characters 
and the very genera themselves had arisen, "and that the 
impartial reader can convince himself of in the 'Philo- 
sophia'". "I saw, furthermore", he says, "that most of 
the generic names were not of Latin, but of base origin, 
and I have purged Ichthyology of those barbarims". 
He mentions, too, having discarded such generic names 
of fishes as were also used in other departments of the 
animal world, in order to banish all cause of confusion, 
and relates that he has explained the distinction be- 
tween real Species and mere Varieties, and that he has 
pointed out what specific names are spurious and what 
genuine, etc. In a word, he states briefly but com- 
pletely what the contents of each part of his work are, 
and by so doing has placed it upon record beyond 
gainsaying that the work proceeded from his own brain 
and is not in part the production of another. On the 
other hand, it is in like manner incredible that LINNAEUS 
should have borrowed any of his theses from the manu- 
script of his friend, for the "Fundamenta Botanica" was 
in a finished state when the meeting of the two friends 
in Amsterdam took place, and was probably already 
printed by the time CLIFFORD had redeemed ARTEDI'S 
manuscripts. How are we then to explain to ourselves 
the remarkable degree of harmony subsisting between 
the fundamental rules laid down by the two investiga- 
tors'? It is doubtless wholly due to the agreement in 
their respective acceptations of science and scientific 
