The commencement of the history of ichthyology coincides with that of
zoology generally. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) had a perfect knowledge of
the general structure of fishes, which he clearly discriminates both
from the aquatic animals with lungs and mammae, i.e. Cetaceans, and from
the various groups of aquatic invertebrates. According to him: "the
special characteristics of the true fishes consist in the branchiae and
fins, the majority having four fins, but those of an elongate form, as
the eels, having two only. Some, as the _Muraena_, lack the fins
altogether. The rays swim with their whole body, which is spread out.
The branchiae are sometimes furnished with an operculum, sometimes they
are without one, as in the cartilaginous fishes.... No fish has hairs or
feathers; most are covered with scales, but some have only a rough or a
smooth skin. The tongue is hard, often toothed, and sometimes so much
adherent that it seems to be wanting. The eyes have no lids, nor are any
ears or nostrils visible, for what takes the place of nostrils is a
blind cavity; nevertheless they have the senses of tasting, smelling and
hearing. All have blood. All scaly fishes are oviparous, but the
cartilaginous fishes (with the exception of the sea-devil, which
Aristotle places along with them) are viviparous. All have a heart,
liver and gall-bladder; but kidneys and urinary bladder are absent. They
vary much in the structure of their intestines: for, whilst the mullet
has a fleshy stomach like a bird, others have no stomachic dilatation.
Pyloric caeca are close to the stomach, and vary in number; there are
even some, like the majority of the cartilaginous fishes, which have
none whatever. Two bodies are situated along the spine, which have the
function of testicles; they open towards the vent, and are much enlarged
in the spawning season. The scales become harder with age. Not being
provided with lungs, fishes have no voice, but several can emit grunting
sounds. They sleep like other animals. In most cases the females exceed
the males in size; and in the rays and sharks the male is distinguished
by an appendage on each side of the vent."
Aristotle's information on the habits of fishes, their migrations, mode
and time of propagation, and economic uses is, so far as it has been
tested, surprisingly correct. Unfortunately, we too often lack the means
of recognizing the species of which he gives a description. His ideas of
specific distinction were as vague as those of the fishermen whose
nomenclature he adopted; it never occurred to him that vernacular names
are subject to change, or may be entirely lost in course of time, and
the difficulty of identifying his species is further increased by the
circumstance that sometimes several popular names are applied by him to
the same fish, or different stages of growth are designated by distinct
names. The number of fishes known to Aristotle seems to have been about
one hundred and fifteen, all of which are inhabitants of the Aegean Sea.
That one man should have laid so sure a basis for future progress in
zoology is less surprising than that for about eighteen centuries a
science which seemed to offer particular attractions to men gifted with
power of observation was no further advanced. Yet such is the case.
Aristotle's successors remained satisfied to be his copiers or
commentators, and to collect fabulous stories or vague notions. With few
exceptions (such as Ausonius, who wrote a small poem, in which he
describes from his own observations the fishes of the Moselle) authors
abstained from original research; and it was not until about the middle
of the 16th century that ichthyology made a new step in advance by the
appearance of Belon, Rondelet and Salviani, who almost simultaneously
published their great works, by which the idea of species was
established.
Belon.
P. Belon travelled in the countries bordering on the eastern part of the
Mediterranean in the years 1547-1550; he collected rich stores of
positive knowledge, which he embodied in several works. The one most
important for the progress of ichthyology is that entitled _De
aquatilibus libri duo_ (Paris, 1553). Belon knew about one hundred and
ten fishes, of which he gives rude but generally recognizable figures.
Although Belon rarely gives definitions of the terms used by him, it is
not generally very difficult to ascertain the limits which he intended
to assign to each division of aquatic animals. He very properly divides
them into such as are provided with blood and those without it--two
divisions corresponding in modern language to vertebrate and
invertebrate aquatic animals. The former are classified by him according
to size, the further sub-divisions being based on the structure of the
skeleton, mode of propagation, number of limbs, form of the body and
physical character of the habitat.
Salviani.
The work of the Roman ichthyologist H. Salviani (1514-1572), bears
evidence of the high social position which the author held as physician
to three popes. Its title is _Aquatilium animalium historia_ (Rome,
1554-1557, fol.). It treats exclusively of the fishes of Italy.
Ninety-two species are figured on seventy-six plates, which, as regards
artistic execution, are masterpieces of that period, although those
specific characteristics which nowadays constitute the value of a
zoological drawing were overlooked by the author or artist. No attempt
is made at a natural classification, but the allied forms are generally
placed in close proximity. The descriptions are equal to those given by
Belon, entering much into the details of the economy and uses of the
several species, and were evidently composed with the view of collecting
in a readable form all that might prove of interest to the class of
society in which the author moved. Salviani's work is of a high order.
It could not fail to render ichthyology popular in the country to the
fauna of which it was devoted, but it was not fitted to advance
ichthyology as a science generally; in this respect Salviani is not to
be compared with Rondelet or Belon.
Rondelet.
G. Rondelet (1507-1557) had the great advantage over Belon of having
received a medical education at Paris, and especially of having gone
through a complete course of instruction in anatomy as a pupil of
Guentherus of Andernach. This is conspicuous throughout his
works--_Libri de piscibus marinis_ (Lyons, 1554); and _Universae
aquatilium historiae pars altera_ (Lyons, 1555). Nevertheless they
cannot be regarded as more than considerably enlarged editions of
Belon's work. For, although he worked independently of the latter, the
system adopted by him is characterized by the same absence of the true
principles of classification. His work is almost entirely limited to
European and chiefly to Mediterranean forms, and comprises no fewer than
one hundred and ninety-seven marine and forty-seven fresh-water fishes.
His descriptions are more complete and his figures much more accurate
than those of Belon; and the specific account is preceded by
introductory chapters, in which he treats in a general manner of the
distinctions, the external and internal parts, and the economy of
fishes. Like Belon, he had no conception of the various categories of
classification--confounding throughout his work the terms "genus" and
"species," but he had an intuitive notion of what his successors called
a "species," and his principal object was to give as much information as
possible regarding such species.
For nearly a century the works of Belon and Rondelet continued to be the
standard works on ichthyology; but the science did not remain stationary
during that period. The attention of naturalists was now directed to the
fauna of foreign countries, especially of the Spanish and Dutch
possessions in the New World; and in Europe the establishment of
anatomical schools and academies led to careful investigation of the
internal anatomy of the most remarkable European forms. Limited as these
efforts were as to their scope, they were sufficiently numerous to
enlarge the views of naturalists, and to destroy that fatal dependence
on preceding authorities which had kept in bonds even Rondelet and
Belon. The most noteworthy of those engaged in these inquiries in
tropical countries were W. Piso and G. Marcgrave, who accompanied as
physicians the Dutch governor, Count Maurice of Nassau, to Brazil
(1630-1644).
Of the men who left records of their anatomical researches, we may
mention Borelli (1608-1679), who wrote a work _De motu animalium_ (Rome,
1680, 4to), in which he explained the mechanism of swimming and the
function of the air-bladder; M. Malpighi (1628-1694), who examined the
optic nerve of the sword-fish; the celebrated J. Swammerdam (1637-1680),
who described the intestines of numerous fishes; and J. Duverney
(1648-1730), who investigated in detail the organs of respiration.
A new era in the history of ichthyology commences with Ray, Willughby
and Artedi, who were the first to recognize the true principles by which
the natural affinities of animals should be determined. Their labours
stand in so intimate a connexion with each other that they represent but
one great step in the progress of this science.
Ray and Willughby.
J. Ray (1628-1705) was the friend and guide of F. Willughby (1635-1672).
They found that a thorough reform in the method of treating the
vegetable and animal kingdoms had become necessary; that the only way of
bringing order into the existing chaos was by arranging the various
forms according to their structure. They therefore substituted facts for
speculation, and one of the first results of this change, perhaps the
most important, was that, having recognized "species" as such, they
defined the term and fixed it as the starting-point of all sound
zoological knowledge.
Although they had divided their work so that Ray attended to the plants
principally, and Willughby to the animals, the _Historia piscium_ (Oxf.,
1686), which bears Willughby's name on the title-page and was edited by
Ray, is their joint production. A great part of the observations
contained in it were collected during the journeys they made together in
Great Britain and in the various countries of Europe.
By the definition of fishes as animals with blood, breathing by gills,
provided with a single ventricle of the heart, and either covered with
scales or naked, the Cetaceans are excluded. The fishes proper are
arranged primarily according to the cartilaginous or the osseous nature
of the skeleton, and then subdivided according to the general form of
the body, the presence or the absence of ventral fins, the soft or the
spinous structure of the dorsal rays, the number of dorsal fins, &c. No
fewer than four hundred and twenty species are thus arranged and
described, of which about one hundred and eighty were known to the
authors from personal examination--a comparatively small proportion,
but descriptions and figures still formed in great measure the
substitute for our modern collections and museums. With the increasing
accumulation of forms, the want of a fixed nomenclature had become more
and more felt.
Artedi.
Peter Artedi (1705-1734) would have been a great ichthyologist if Ray or
Willughby had not preceded him. But he was fully conscious of the fact
that both had prepared the way for him, and therefore he did not fail to
reap every possible advantage from their labours. His work, edited by
Linnaeus, is divided as follows:--
(1) In the _Bibliotheca ichthyologica_ Artedi gives a very complete
list of all preceding authors who had written on fishes, with a
critical analysis of their works. (2) The _Philosophia ichthyologica_
is devoted to a description of the external and internal parts of
fishes; Artedi fixes a precise terminology for all the various
modifications of the organs, distinguishing between those characters
which determine a genus and such as indicate a species or merely a
variety; in fact he establishes the method and principles which
subsequently have guided every systematic ichthyologist. (3) The
_Genera piscium_ contains well-defined diagnoses of forty-five genera,
for which he has fixed an unchangeable nomenclature. (4) In the
_Species piscium_ descriptions of seventy-two species, examined by
himself, are given--descriptions which even now are models of
exactitude and method. (5) Finally, in the _Synonymia piscium_
references to all previous authors are arranged for every species,
very much in the manner which is adopted in the systematic works of
the present day.
Linnaeus.
Artedi has been justly called the father of ichthyology. So admirable
was his treatment of the subject, that even Linnaeus could only modify
and add to it. Indeed, so far as ichthyology is concerned, Linnaeus has
scarcely done anything beyond applying binominal terms to the species
properly described and classified by Artedi. His classification of the
genera appears in the 12th edition of the _Systema_ thus:--
A. _Amphibia nantia._--_Spiraculis compositis._--Petromyzon, Raía,
Squalus, Chimaera. _Spiraculis solitariis._--Lophius, Acipenser,
Cyclopterus, Balistes, Ostracion, Tetrodon, Diodon, Centriscus,
Syngnathus, Pegasus.
B. _Pisces apodes._--Muraena, Gymnotus, Trichiurus, Anarrhichas,
Ammodytes, Ophidium, Stromateus, Xiphias.
C. _Pisces jugulares._--Callionymus, Uranoscopus, Trachinus, Gadus,
Blennius.
D. _Pisces thoracici._--Cepola, Echeneis, Coryphaena, Gobius, Cottus,
Scorpaena, Zeus, Pleuronectes, Chaetodon, Sparus, Labrus, Sciaena,
Perca, Gasterosteus, Scomber, Mullus, Trigla.
E. _Pisces abdominales._--Cobitis, Amia, Silurus, Teuthis, Loricaria,
Salmo, Fistularia, Esox, Elops, Argentina, Atherina, Mugil, Mormyrus,
Exocoetus, Polynemus, Clupea, Cyprinus.
Two contemporaries of Linnaeus, L. T. Gronow and J. T. Klein, attempted
a systematic arrangement of fishes.
The works of Artedi and Linnaeus led to an activity of research,
especially in Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and England, such as has
never been equalled in the history of biological science. Whilst some of
the pupils and followers of Linnaeus devoted themselves to the
examination and study of the fauna of their native countries, others
proceeded on voyages of discovery to foreign and distant lands. Of these
latter the following may be especially mentioned: O. Fabricius worked
out the fauna of Greenland; Peter Kalm collected in North America, F.
Hasselquist in Egypt and Palestine, M. T. Brünnich in the Mediterranean,
Osbeck in Java and China, K. P. Thunberg in Japan; Forskål examined and
described the fishes of the Red Sea; G. W. Steller, P. S. Pallas, S. G.
Gmelin, and A. J. Güldenstädt traversed nearly the whole of the Russian
empire in Europe and Asia. Others attached themselves as naturalists to
celebrated navigators, such as the two Forsters (father and son) and
Solander, who accompanied Cook; P. Commerson, who travelled with
Bougainville; and Pierre Sonnerat. Of those who studied the fishes of
their native countries, the most celebrated were Pennant (Great
Britain), O. F. Müller (Denmark), Duhamel du Monceau (France), C. von
Meidinger (Austria), J. Cornide (Spain), and A. Parra (Cuba).
The mass of materials brought together was so great that, not long after
the death of Linnaeus, the necessity made itself felt for collecting
them in a compendious form. Several compilers undertook this task; they
embodied the recent discoveries in new editions of the classical works
of Artedi and Linnaeus, but, they only succeeded in burying those noble
monuments under a chaotic mass of rubbish. For ichthyology it was
fortunate that two men at least, Bloch and Lacepède, made it a subject
of prolonged original research.
Bloch.
Mark Eliezer Bloch (1723-1799), a physician of Berlin, had reached the
age of fifty-six when he began to write on ichthyological subjects. His
work consists of two divisions:-- (1) _Öconomische Naturgeschichte der
Fische Deutschlands_ (Berl., 1782-1784); (2) _Naturgeschichte der
ausländischen Fische_ (Berl., 1785-1795). The first division, which is
devoted to a description of the fishes of Germany, is entirely original.
His descriptions as well as figures were made from nature, and are, with
few exceptions, still serviceable; indeed many continue to be the best
existing in literature. Bloch was less fortunate, and is much less
trustworthy, in his natural history of foreign fishes. For many of the
species he had to trust to more or less incorrect drawings and
descriptions by travellers; frequently, also, he was deceived as to the
origin of specimens which he purchased. Hence his accounts contain
numerous errors, which it would have been difficult to correct had not
nearly the whole of the materials on which his work is based been
preserved in the collections at Berlin.
After the completion of his great work Bloch prepared a general system
of fishes, in which he arranged not only those previously described, but
also those with which he had afterwards become acquainted. The work was
ably edited and published after Bloch's death by a philologist, J. G.
Schneider, under the title _M. E. Blochii Systema ichthyologiae iconibus
cx. illustratum_ (Berl., 1801). The number of species enumerated amounts
to 1519. The system is based upon the number of the fins, the various
orders being termed _Hendecapterygii_, _Decapterygii_, &c. An artificial
method like this led to the most unnatural combinations and
distinctions.
Bloch's _Naturgeschichte_ remained for many years the standard work. But
as regards originality of thought Bloch was far surpassed by his
contemporary, B. G. E. de Lacepède, born at Agen, in France, in 1756,
who became professor at the museum of natural history in Paris, where he
died in 1825.
Lacepède.
Lacepède had to contend with great difficulties in the preparations of
his _Histoire des poissons_ (Paris, 1798-1803, 5 vols.), which was
written during the most disturbed period of the French Revolution. A
great part of it was composed whilst the author was separated from
collections and books, and had to rely on his notes and manuscripts
only. Even the works of Bloch and other contemporaneous authors remained
unknown or inaccessible to him for a long time. His work, therefore,
abounds in the kind of errors into which a compiler is liable to fall.
Thus the influence of Lacepède on the progress of ichthyology was vastly
less than that of his fellow-labourer; and the labour laid on his
successors in correcting numerous errors probably outweighed the
assistance which they derived from his work.
The work of the principal students of ichthyology in the period between
Ray and Lacepède was chiefly systematizing and describing; but the
internal organization of fishes also received attention from more than
one great anatomist. Albrecht von Haller, Peter Camper and John Hunter
examined the nervous system and the organs of sense; and Alexander
Monro, _secundus_, published a classical work, _The Structure and
Physiology of Fishes Explained and Compared with those of Man and other
Animals_ (Edin., 1785). The electric organs of fishes (_Torpedo_ and
_Gymnotus_) were examined by Réaumur, J. N. S. Allamand, E. Bancroft,
John Walsh, and still more exactly by J. Hunter. The mystery of the
propagation of the eel called forth a large number of essays, and even
the artificial propagation of _Salmonidae_ was known and practised by J.
G. Gleditsch (1764).
Bloch and Lacepède's works were almost immediately succeeded by the
labours of Cuvier, but his early publications were tentative,
preliminary and fragmentary, so that some little time elapsed before the
spirit infused into ichthyology by this great anatomist could exercise
its influence on all the workers in this field.
The _Descriptions and Figures of Two Hundred Fishes collected at
Vizagapatam on the Coast of Coromandel_ (Lond., 1803, 2 vols.) by
Patrick Russel, and _An Account of the Fishes found in the River
Ganges and its Branches_ (Edin., 1822, 2 vols.) by F. Hamilton
(formerly Buchanan), were works distinguished by greater accuracy of
the drawings (especially the latter) than was ever attained before. A
_Natural History of British Fishes_ was published by E. Donovan
(Lond., 1802-1808); and the Mediterranean fauna formed the study of
the lifetime of A. Risso, _Ichthyologie de Nice_ (Paris, 1810); and
_Histoire naturelle de l'Europe méridionale_ (Paris, 1827). A slight
beginning in the description of the fishes of the United States was
made by Samuel Latham Mitchell (1764-1831), who published, besides
various papers, a _Memoir on the Ichthyology of New York_, in 1815.
Cuvier.
Valenciennes.
G. Cuvier (1769-1832) devoted himself to the study of fishes with
particular predilection. The investigation of their anatomy, and
especially their skeleton, was continued until he had succeeded in
completing so perfect a framework of the system of the whole class that
his immediate successors required only to fill up those details for
which their master had had no leisure. He ascertained the natural
affinities of the infinite variety of forms, and accurately defined the
divisions, orders, families and genera of the class, as they appear in
the various editions of the _Règne Animal_. His industry equalled his
genius; he formed connections with almost every accessible part of the
globe; and for many years the museum of the Jardin des Plantes was the
centre where all ichthyological treasures were deposited. Thus Cuvier
brought together a collection which, as it contains all the materials on
which his labours were based, must still be considered as the most
important. Soon after the year 1820, Cuvier, assisted by one of his
pupils, A. Valenciennes, commenced his great work on fishes, _Historie
naturelle des Poissons_, of which the first volume appeared in 1828.
After Cuvier's death in 1832 the work was left entirely in the hands of
Valenciennes, whose energy and interest gradually slackened, rising to
their former pitch in some parts only, as, for instance, in the
treatise, on the herring. He left the work unfinished with the
twenty-second volume (1848), which treats of the Salmonoids. Yet,
incomplete as it is, it is indispensable to the student.