AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE
STUDY OF FISHES
BY
ALBERT C. L. G. GÜNTHER
M.A. M.D. Ph.D. F.R.S.
KEEPER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM
[Illustration: Carpit aquas pinnis.]
EDINBURGH
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
1880
[_All rights reserved._]
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.
PREFACE.
The scope of the present work is to give in a concise form an account
of the principal facts relating to the structure, classification, and
life-history of Fishes. It is intended to meet the requirements of
those who are desirous of studying the elements of Ichthyology; to
serve as a book of reference to zoologists generally; and, finally,
to supply those who, like travellers, have frequent opportunities
of observing fishes, with a ready means of obtaining information.
The article on “Ichthyology,” prepared by the late Sir J. Richardson
for the eighth edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” is the only
publication which has hitherto partly satisfied such requirements;
and when I undertook, some years ago, to revise, or rather rewrite
that article for the new edition of that work, it occurred to me that
I might at the same time prepare a Handbook of Ichthyology, whilst
reserving for the article an abstract so condensed as to be adapted for
the wants of the general reader.
From the general plan of the work I have only departed in those
chapters which deal with the Geographical Distribution of Fishes. This
is a subject which has never before been treated in a general and
comprehensive manner, and seemed to demand particular attention. I
have, therefore, thought it right to give nominal lists of the Faunæ,
and the other details of fact on which I have based my conclusions,
although all the necessary materials may be found in my “Catalogue of
Fishes.”
A few references only to the numerous sources which were consulted
on the subjects of Chapters 1–12, are inserted in the text; more not
required by the beginner; he is introduced to a merely elementary
knowledge of facts well known to the advanced student.
With regard to the illustrations, about twenty have been prepared after
originals published by Cuvier, J. Müller, Owen, Traquair, Duméril,
Cunningham, Hasse, Poey, Siebold, and Gegenbaur. A similar number,
representing extinct fishes, have been taken, with the kind permission
of the author, from Owen’s “Palæontology.” My best thanks are due also
to the Committee of Publications of the Zoological Society, and to the
Editors of the “Annals and Magazine of Natural History,” and of the
“Journal des Museum Godeffroy,” for the loan of woodcuts illustrating
some of my papers on South American fishes and on larval forms. The
remainder of the illustrations (about three-fourths) are either
original figures, or formed part of the article on ‘Ichthyology’ in the
former edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.”
LONDON, _3d October 1880_.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
PAGE
FISH DEFINED--ICHTHYOLOGY DEFINED 1
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY AND LITERATURE 2
Aristotle, 2--Belon, 4--Salviani, 6--Rondelet, 6--Faunists and
Anatomists of the Seventeenth Century, 7--Ray and Willughby,
8--Artedi, 9--Linnæus, 10--Gronow and Klein, 12--Pupils
and Successors of Linnæus, 12--Bloch, 13--Lacépède, 15--Anatomists
and Faunists preceding Cuvier, 16--Cuvier, 17--Agassiz,
20--J. Müller, 22--Discovery of Ceratodus, 25--Recent
publications on Fishes, 26--Latest systematic works, 33.
CHAPTER II.
TOPOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTERNAL PARTS OF
FISHES 35
Form of the body, 35--External parts of the head, 36--Trunk and
Tail, 39--Fins; their structure, position, and function, 40--Skin
and Scales, 45.
CHAPTER III.
TERMINOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SKELETON 51
Axial portion, 51--Vertebra and its parts; terms defined,
51--Skull; bones topographically enumerated, 53--Bones of the
limbs, 59--Synonymic list of bones, 59.
CHAPTER IV.
MODIFICATIONS OF THE SKELETON 63
Branchiostoma, 63--Cyclostomes, 64--Chondropterygians,
66--Holocephali, 70--Ganoids, 71--Dipnoi, 71--Chondrostei,
74--Polypteroidei, 77--Lepidosteoidei, 80--Amioidei,
82--Teleostei, 83--Classification of the bones of the
Teleosteous skull according to the vertebral doctrine,
85--their morphological classification, 86--Limb-bones of
Teleosteans, 92.
CHAPTER V.
MYOLOGY 93
General arrangement of the Muscles, 93--Electric organs, 94.
CHAPTER VI.
NEUROLOGY 96
Of Branchiostoma, 96--Spinal chord, 96--Brain, its size, 97--Brain
of Osseous fishes, 97--of Ganoids, 98--of Chondropterygians,
100--of Cyclostomes, 101--Spino-cerebral nerves, 103--Spinal
nerves, 107--Sympathic system, 108.
CHAPTER VII.
THE ORGANS OF SENSE 109
Smell, 109--Sight, 111--Hearing; connection of the ear with the
air-bladder, 116--Taste, 119--Touch, 120.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ORGANS OF NUTRITION AND DIGESTION 121
Food and mode of feeding, 121--Buccal and abdominal cavities and
their openings, 123--Mouth and tongue, 123--Forms, texture,
and arrangement of teeth, 124--Intestinal tract, 127--Liver,
132--Pancreas, 133--Spleen, 133.
CHAPTER IX.
ORGANS OF RESPIRATION 135
Respiration, 135--Structure and arrangement of the gills,
136--Pseudobranchiæ, 140--Accessory respiratory organs,
142--Air-bladder; its varieties, structure, and functions, 142.
CHAPTER X.
ORGANS OF CIRCULATION 150
CHAPTER XI.
URINARY ORGANS 155
CHAPTER XII.
ORGANS OF REPRODUCTION 157
Fishes are dioecious, 157--Hermaphroditism, 157--Oviparous and
viviparous fishes, 157--Generative organs of Branchiostoma,
157--of Cyclostomes; their ova, 158--Female organs of
Teleosteans and their ova, 158--Instances of females taking
care of their progeny, 160--Male organs of Teleosteans,
162--Instances of males taking care of their progeny,
163--Generative organs of Ganoids, 163--of Chondropterygians
and their ova, 166.
CHAPTER XIII.
GROWTH AND VARIATION OF FISHES 170
Changes of form of the body or certain parts, normally accompanying
growth, 170--Changes dependent on sexual development,
176--Secondary sexual differences, 176--Mixogamous, polygamous,
and monogamous fishes, 177--Hybridism as a cause
of variation, 178--Regular and irregular growth of fishes,
178--Leptocephali not a normal state of development, 179--Changes
of colour of the muscles and external parts; chromatophors,
182--Albinism, 183.
CHAPTER XIV.
DOMESTICATED AND ACCLIMATISED FISHES, ETC. 185
Domesticated fishes, 185--Acclimatisation of fishes,
185--Artificial impregnation of ova, 186--Tenacity of life,
186--Reproduction of lost parts, 188--Hybernation, 188--Useful
fishes, 189--Poisonous fishes, 189--Poison-organs, 190.
CHAPTER XV.
DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES IN TIME 193
Oldest fish-remains, 193--Devonian fishes, 194--Carboniferous,
196--Permian, 197--Triassic, 197--Liassic, 198--Oolitic,
199--Cretaceous, 199--Tertiary, 200--Post-pliocene, 201.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING FISHES OVER THE EARTH’S
SURFACE.--GENERAL REMARKS 202
Freshwater-, Marine-, and Brackish-water Fishes, 202--Changes of
the habitat of numerous fishes, active, 203--or dependent on
geological changes, 204--Agencies operating upon the distribution
of Freshwater and Marine fishes, 205.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF FRESHWATER FISHES 208
List of Freshwater Fishes, 208--Continuous and interrupted range
of distribution, 209--The ways of dispersal of Freshwater
fishes, 211--A wide range of a type is not necessarily proof of
its antiquity, 212--Each fauna is composed of ancient, autochthont,
and immigrant species, 213--Division of the globe
into zoological regions; freshwater fishes have been spread in
circumpolar zones, 215--Cyprinidæ and Siluridæ, most important
families in recognising the zoo-geographical regions,
216--Division of the faunæ of Freshwater fishes, 217--I.
_Equatorial Zone_, 218--Indian Region, 220--African Region,
227--Tropical American or Neotropical Region, 233--Tropical
Pacific Region, 238--II. _Northern Zone_, 240--Europe-Asiatic
or Palæarctic Region, 243--North American or Nearctic
Region, 246--III. _Southern Zone_, with Tasmanian, New
Zealand, and Fuegian Sub-regions, 248.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE FISHES OF THE BRACKISH WATER 251
CHAPTER XIX.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF MARINE FISHES 255
Shore-fishes, Pelagic, and Deep-sea fishes, 255--List of
Shore-fishes, 257--Oceanic areæ as determined by Shore-fishes,
259--Distribution of Shore-fishes compared with that of
Freshwater-fishes, 260--I. _Arctic Ocean_, 261--II. _Northern
Temperate Zone_, 262--Temperate North-Atlantic, 262--with
British, 263--Mediterranean, 264--and North American districts,
266--Temperate North-Pacific, 268--with Kamtschatkan,
269--Japanese, 270--and Californian districts, 271--III.
_Equatorial Zone_, 272--with Tropical Atlantic, 278--Indo-Pacific
Ocean, 278--and the Pacific Coasts of Tropical America,
279--IV. _Southern Temperate Zone_, 281--with the Cape of Good
Hope, 283--South Australia and New Zealand, 283--Chile, 288--and
Patagonia, 289--V. _Antarctic Ocean_, 289.
CHAPTER XX.
DISTRIBUTION OF PELAGIC FISHES 292
CHAPTER XXI.
THE FISHES OF THE DEEP SEA 296
Deep-sea fishes a recent discovery, 296--Physical conditions affecting
these fishes, 297--Characteristics of Deep-sea fishes, 299--Their
vertical and horizontal distribution, 304--List of Deep-sea
fishes, 305.
SYSTEMATIC AND DESCRIPTIVE PART.
FIRST SUB-CLASS--PALÆICHTHYES.
PAGE
FIRST ORDER--CHONDROPTERYGII 313
I. _Plagiostomata_ 313
A. _Selachoidei--Sharks_ 314
Families: Carchariidæ (Blue Shark, Tope, Hammerhead,
Hound), 316--Lamnidæ (Porbeagle, Carcharodon,
Fox-Shark, Basking-Shark), 319--Rhinodontidæ,
323--Notidanidæ, 324--Scylliidæ (Dog-fishes),
325--Hybodontidæ, 328--Cestraciontidæ (Port Jackson
Shark), 328--Spinacidæ (Spiny Dogs, Greenland
Shark), 330--Rhinidæ, 334--Pristiophoridæ, 335.
B. _Batoidei--Rays_ 335
Families: Pristidæ (Saw-fishes), 336--Rhinobatidæ,
337--Torpedinidæ (Electric Rays), 338--Rajidæ (Rays
and Skates), 340--Trygonidæ (Sting Rays), 342--Myliobatidæ
(Eagle Rays), 344.
II. _Holocephala_ 348
Family: Chimæridæ, 348.
SECOND ORDER--GANOIDEI 350
I. _Placodermi_ 351
II. _Acanthodini_ 355
III. _Dipnoi_ 355
Families: Sirenidæ (Lepidosiren, Protopterus, Ceratodus),
355--Ctenododipteridæ, 359--Phaneropleuridæ, 360.
IV. _Chondrostei_ 360
Families: Acipenseridæ (Sturgeons), 360--Polyodontidæ,
362.
V. _Polypteroidei_ 363
Families: Polypteridæ, 364--Saurodipteridæ,
365--Coelacanthidæ, 365--Holoptychidæ, 365.
VI. _Pycnodontoidei_ 366
Families: Pleurolepidæ, 366--Pycnodontidæ, 366.
VII. _Lepidosteoidei_ 367
Families: Lepidosteidæ, 367--Sauridæ, 368--Stylodontidæ,
368--Sphærodontidæ, 368--Aspidorhynchidæ,
369--Palæoniscidæ, 369--Platysomidæ, 370.
VIII. _Amioidei_ 370
Families: Caturidæ, 371--Leptolepidæ, 371--Amiidæ
(Bow-fin), 371.
SECOND SUB-CLASS--TELEOSTEI.
FIRST ORDER--ACANTHOPTERYGII 374
I. _A. perciformes_ 374
Families: Percidæ (Freshwater-Perches, Bass, Sea-Perches,
Centrarchus), 375--Squamipinnes (Coral-Fishes),
397--Mullidæ (Red-Mullets), 403--Sparidæ
(Sea-breams), 405--Hoplognathidæ, 410--Cirrhitidæ,
410--Scorpænidæ, 412--Nandidæ, 418--Polycentridæ,
418--Teuthididæ, 418.
II. _A. beryciformes_ 419
Family: Berycidæ, 420.
III. _A. kurtiformes_ 424
Family: Kurtidæ, 424.
IV. _A. polynemiformes_ 425
Family: Polynemidæ, 425.
V. _A. sciæniformes_ 426
Family: Sciænidæ (Meagres), 426.
VI. _A. xiphiiformes_ 431
Family: Xiphiidæ (Sword-fishes), 431.
VII. _A. trichiuriformes_ 433
Families: Trichiuridæ (Scabbard-fishes, Hairtails),
433--Palæorhynchidæ, 437.
VIII. _A. cotto-scombriformes_ 438
Families: Acronuridæ (Surgeons), 438--Carangidæ
(Horse-Mackerels, Pilot-fish, Boar-fish), 440--Cyttidæ
(John Dorey), 450--Stromateidæ, 452--Coryphænidæ
(Dolphin, Sun-fish), 452--Nomeidæ,
455--Scombridæ (Mackerel, Tunny, Bonito, Albacore,
Sucking-fish), 456--Trachinidæ (Stare-gazer,
Weever, etc.), 462--Malacanthidæ, 467--Batrachidæ,
467--Psychrolutidæ, 469--Pediculati (Angler,
Antennarius, etc.), 469--Cottidæ (Bull-heads, Gurnards),
476--Cataphracti (Flying Gurnards), 480--Pegasidæ,
482.
IX. _A. gobiiformes_ 483
Families: Discoboli (Lump-suckers), 483--Gobiidæ
(Gobies, Dragonets), 485.
X. _A. blenniiformes_ 490
Families: Cepolidæ (Band-fishes), 490--Trichonotidæ,
490--Heterolepidotidæ, 491--Blenniidæ (Wolf-fish,
Blennies), 492--Acanthoclinidæ, 498--Mastacembelidæ,
499.
XI. _A. mugiliformes_ 499
Families: Sphyrænidæ (Barracudas), 499--Atherinidæ
(Atherines), 500--Mugilidæ (Mullets), 501.
XII. _A. gastrosteiformes_ 504
Families: Gastrosteidæ (Sticklebacks), 504--Fistulariidæ
(Flute-mouths), 507.
XIII. _A. centrisciformes_ 508
Family: Centriscidæ, 508.
XIV. _A. gobiesociformes_ 510
Family: Gobiesocidæ, 512.
XV. _A. channiformes_ 513
Family: Ophiocephalidæ, 513.
XVI. _A. labyrinthibranchii_ 514
Families: Labyrinthici (Climbing Perch, Gourami),
514--Luciocephalidæ, 519.
XVII. _A. lophotiformes_ 519
Family: Lophotidæ, 519.
XVIII. _A. tæniiformes_ 520
Family: Trachypteridæ (Ribbon-fishes), 520.
XIX. _A. notacanthiformes_ 523
Family: Notacanthidæ, 523.
SECOND ORDER--ACANTHOPTERYGII PHARYNGOGNATHI 523
Families: Pomacentridæ (Coral-fishes), 524--Labridæ
(Wrasses, Parrot-wrasses), 525--Embiotocidæ,
533--Chromides, 534.
THIRD ORDER--ANACANTHINI 537
I. _A. gadoidei_ 537
Families: Lycodidæ, 537--Gadidæ (Cod-fishes, Hake,
Burbot, Ling, Rockling, Torsk), 539--Ophidiidæ
(Brotula, Fierasfer, Sand-eel, Congrogadus),
546--Macruridæ, 551.
II. _A. pleuronectoidei_ 553
Family: Pleuronectidæ (Flat-fishes), 553.
FOURTH ORDER--PHYSOSTOMI 559
Families: _Siluridæ_; their skeleton, 559--divided into
eight subdivisions and sixteen groups; Clariina,
563--Plotosina, 563--Silurina, 565--Hypophthalmina,
566--Bagrina, 567--Amiurina, 567--Pimelodina,
568--Ariina, 569--Doradina, 572--Rhinoglanina,
573--Malapterurina (Electric Catfish), 574--Hypostomatina
(Preñadillas, Loricaria, etc.), 575--Aspredinina,
580--Nematogenyina and Trichomycterina, 581--Stegopholina,
581.
Families of Physostomi continued: Scopelidæ,
582--_Cyprinidæ_ (Carps), 587--divided into fourteen
groups, viz. Catostomina (Suckers), 588--Cyprinina (Carp,
Crucian Carp, Gold-fish, Barbels, Gudgeons),
589--Rohteichthyina, 596--Leptobarbina, 597--Rasborina,
597--Semiplotina, 598--Xenocypridina, 598--Leuciscina
(White fish, Tench, Dace, etc.), 598--Rhodeina,
601--Danionina, 601--Hypophthalmichthyina,
602--Abramidina (Bream, Bleak), 602--Homalopterina,
604--Cobitidina (Loaches), 604.
Families of Physostomi continued: Kneriidæ,
606--Characinidæ, 606--Cyprinodontidæ, 613--Heteropygii
(Blind Fish of the Mammoth Cave), 618--Umbridæ,
619--Scombresocidæ (Gar-pike, Saury, Half-beak, Flying
Fish), 619--Esocidæ (Pike), 623--Galaxiidæ, 624--Mormyridæ,
625--Sternoptychidæ, 627--Stomiatidæ, 629.
Families of Physostomi continued--_Salmonidæ_: Salmo,
difficulty of distinguishing species, 630; constant
specific characters, 635--hybrids, 638--sexual development,
638--migratory species and their retention in freshwater,
639--Growth of Salmonoids, 641--their domestication and
acclimatisation, 641--species enumerated, 642--Smelt and
Capelin, 646--Coregonus, 647--Grayling, 649--marine
genera, 650.
Families of Physostomi continued: Percopsidæ,
651--Haplochitonidæ, 651--Gonorhynchidæ, 652--Hyodontidæ
(Moon-eye), 653--Pantodontidæ, 653--Osteoglossidæ,
653--Clupeidæ (Herrings, Anchovies, Shads, Mossbanker,
Menhaden, etc.), 655--Bathythrissidæ, 663--Chirocentridæ,
663--Alepocephalidæ, 664--Notopteridæ, 664--Halosauridæ,
665--Hoplopleuridæ, 665--Gymnotidæ (Electric Eel),
666--Symbranchidæ, 668--Murænidæ (Eels, Congers, Murænas,
etc.), 669.
FIFTH ORDER--LOPHOBRANCHII 678
Families: Solenostomidæ, 678--Syngnathidæ (Pipe-fishes,
Sea-horses), 679.
SIXTH ORDER--PLECTOGNATHI 683
Families: Sclerodermi (File-fishes, Coffer-fishes),
684--Gymnodontes (Globe-fishes, Sun-fish), 686.
THIRD SUB-CLASS--CYCLOSTOMATA.
Families: Petromyzontidæ (Lampreys), 691--Myxinidæ, 694.
FOURTH SUB-CLASS--LEPTOCARDII.
Family: Cirrhostomi (Lancelets), 696.
APPENDIX.
DIRECTIONS FOR COLLECTING AND PRESERVING FISHES 697
ALPHABETICAL INDEX 707
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
According to the views generally adopted at present, all those
Vertebrate animals are referred to the Class of Fishes, which living in
water, breathe air dissolved in water by means of gills or branchiæ;
whose heart consists of a single ventricle and single atrium; whose
limbs, if present, are modified into fins, supplemented by unpaired,
median fins; and whose skin is either naked, or covered with scales or
osseous plates or bucklers. With few exceptions fishes are oviparous.
However, there are not a few members of this Class which show a
modification of one or more of these characteristics, as we shall see
hereafter, and which, nevertheless, cannot be separated from it. The
distinction between the Class of Fishes and that of Batrachians is very
slight indeed.
The branch of Zoology which treats of the internal and external
structure of fishes, their mode of life, and their distribution in
space and time, is termed Ichthyology.[1]
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY AND LITERATURE.
[Sidenote: Aristotle.]
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
from the Aquatic animals with lungs and mammæ, _i.e._ Cetaceans, and
from the various groups of Aquatic Invertebrates. He says that “the
special characteristics of the true fishes consist in the branchiæ and
fins, the majority having four fins, but those of an elongate form,
as the eels, having two only. Some, as the _Muræna_, lack the fins
altogether. The Rays swim with their whole body, which is spread out.
The branchiæ are sometimes furnished with an opercle, sometimes without
one, as is the case in the cartilaginous fishes.... No fish has hairs
or feathers; most are covered with scales, but some have a rough or
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 coeca are close to the stomach, variable 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, and open towards the vent, and
which are much enlarged in the spawning season. The scales become
harder with age. Not being provided with lungs, they have no voice, but
several can emit grunting sounds. They sleep like other animals. In
the majority 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, utility, is, as far as it has been tested,
surprisingly correct. Unfortunately, only too often we lack the means
of recognising 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 such popular
names are subject to change, or may be entirely lost with time, and
the difficulty of deciphering his species is further increased by the
circumstance that popular names are often applied by him to the same
fish, or that different stages of growth are designated by distinct
names. The number of fishes known to Aristotle seems to have been about
115, all of which are inhabitants of the Ægean Sea.
That one man should have discovered so many truths, and formed so
sure a base for Zoology, is less surprising than the fact that for
about eighteen centuries a science which seemed to offer particular
attractions to men gifted with power of observation, was no farther
advanced. Yet this is the case. Aristotle’s disciples, as well as his
successors, remained satisfied to be his copiers or commentators,
and to collect fabulous stories or vague notions. With very few
exceptions (such as _Ausonius_, who wrote a small poem, in which
he describes from his own observations the fishes of the Mosel)
authors entirely abandoned original research. And it was not until
about the middle of the sixteenth century that Ichthyology made a new
step in advance by the appearance of _Belon_, _Rondelet_, and
_Salviani_, who almost simultaneously published their grand works,
by which the idea of species was established definitely and for all
times.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Belon.]
P. BELON travelled in the countries bordering on the eastern
part of the Mediterranean, in the years 1547–50; he collected rich
stores of positive knowledge, which he deposited in several works. The
one most important for the progress of Ichthyology is that entitled “De
aquatilibus libri duo” (Paris 1553; small 4to.) Belon knows about 110
fishes, of which he gives rude, but generally recognisable, figures. In
his descriptions he pays regard to the classical as well as vernacular
nomenclature, and states the outward characteristics, sometimes even
the number of fin-rays, frequently also the most conspicuous anatomical
peculiarities.
Although Belon but rarely gives definitions of the terms used by him,
it is generally not 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 into
those without it: two divisions, called in modern language Vertebrate
and Invertebrate aquatic animals. The former are classified by him
according to sizes, the further subdivisions being based on the
structure of the skeleton, mode of propagation, number of limbs, form
of the body, and on the physical character of the localities inhabited
by fishes. This classification is as follows:--
I. The larger fishes or Cetaceans.
_A._ Viviparous Cetaceans with bony skeletons (= Cetacea).
_B._ Viviparous Amphibians.
1. “With four limbs: Seals, Hippopotamus, Beaver, Otter, and
other aquatic Mammalia.
2. With two limbs: Mermaids, etc.
_C._ Oviparous Amphibians (= Reptiles and Frogs).
_D._ Viviparous Cartilaginous fishes.
1. Of an oblong form (= Sharks).
2. Of a flat form (= Rays and Lophius).
_E._ Oviparous Cartilaginous fishes (= Sturgeons and Silurus).
_F._ Oviparous Cetaceans, with spines instead of bones (=
large marine fishes, like the Thunny, Sword-fish,
Sciænoids, Bass, Gadoids, Trachypterus).
II. Spinous Oviparous fishes of a flat form (= Pleuronectidæ).
III. Fishes of a high form, like Zeus.
IV. Fishes of a snake like form (= Eels, Belone, Sphyræna).
V. Small Oviparous, spinous, scaly, marine fishes.
1. Pelagic kinds.
2. Littoral kinds.
3. Kinds inhabiting rocky localities.
VI. Fluviatile and Lacustrine fishes.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Salviani.]
The work of the Roman ichthyologist, H. SALVIANI (1514–72),
is characteristic of the high social position which the author held
as the physician of three popes. Its title is “Aquatilium animalium
historia” (Rom. 1554–57, 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 entirely overlooked by the author or
artist. No attempt is made at a natural classification, but the allied
forms generally are placed in close proximity. The descriptions are
quite equal to those given by Belon, entering much into the details of
the economy and usefulness 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 standard, most remarkable for the age in
which he lived. It could not fail to convey valuable instruction, and
to render Ichthyology popular in the country to the fauna of which it
was devoted, but it would not have advanced Ichthyology as science
generally; and in this respect Salviani is not to be compared with
Rondelet or Belon.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Rondelet.]
G. RONDELET (1507–1557) had the great advantage over Belon in
having received a medical education at Paris, and more especially in
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” (Lugd. 1554, fol.); and “Universæ
aquatilium historiæ pars altera” (Lugd. 1555, fol.) Nevertheless
they cannot be regarded as more than considerably enlarged editions
of Belon’s work. For although he worked independently of the latter,
and differs from him in numerous details, the system adopted by
him is characterised by the same absence of the true principles of
classification. Rondelet had a much more extensive knowledge of
details. His work is almost entirely limited to European, and chiefly
Mediterranean, forms, and comprises not less than 197 marine and 47
freshwater 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 on the distinctions, the external and internal parts, and on
the economy of fishes. Like Belon, he had no conception of the various
categories of classification--for instance, confounding throughout his
work the terms “genus” and “species;” but he had intuitively a notion
of what his successors called a “species,” and his principal object was
to collect and give as much information as possible of such species.
For nearly a century the works of Belon and Rondelet remained the
standard works of Ichthyology; but this science did not remain
stationary during this period. The attention of naturalists was now
directed to the products of foreign countries, especially the Spanish
and Dutch possessions in the New World; and in Europe the establishment
of anatomical schools and academies led to the careful investigation
of the internal anatomy of the most remarkable European forms. Limited
as these efforts were as to their scope, being directed either only to
the fauna of some district, or to the dissection of a single species,
they were sufficiently numerous to enlarge the views of naturalists,
and to destroy that fatal dependency on preceding authorities which had
continued to keep in bonds the minds of even such men as Rondelet and
Belon.
[Sidenote: W. Piso. G. Margrav.]
The most noteworthy of those who were active in tropical countries
are W. PISO and G. MARGRAV. They accompanied as physicians the Dutch
Governor, Prince Moritz of Nassau, to Brazil (1637–44). Margrav
especially studied the fauna of the country, and although he died
before his return to Europe, his observations were published by his
colleague, and embodied in a work “Historia naturalis Braziliæ”
(Lugd. 1648, fol.), in which the fourth book treats of the fishes. He
describes about 100 species, all of which had been previously unknown,
in a manner far superior to that of his predecessors. The accompanying
figures are not good, but nearly always recognisable, and giving a
fair idea of the form of the fish. Margrav himself, with the aid of an
artist, had made a most valuable collection of coloured drawings of the
objects observed and described by him, but many years were allowed to
pass before it was scientifically utilised by Bloch and others.
[Sidenote: Anatomists, 1600–1700.]
Of the men who left records of their anatomical researches, we may
mention BORELLI (1608–79), who wrote a work “De motu animalium” (Rom.
1680, 4to), in which he explained the mechanism of swimming, and the
function of the air-bladder; M. MALPIGHI (1628–94), who examined the
optic nerve of the sword-fish; the celebrated J. SWAMMERDAM (1637–80),
who described the intestines of numerous fishes; and J. DUVERNEY
(1648–1730), who entered into detailed researches of the organs of
respiration.
* * * * *
A new era in the history of Ichthyology commences with _Ray_,
_Willughby_, and _Artedi_, who were the first to recognise
the true principles by which the natural affinities of animals should
be determined. Their labours stand in so intimate a connection with
each other that they represent only one stride in the progress of this
science.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Ray and Willughby]
J. RAY (born 1628 in Essex, died 1705), was the friend and
guide of F. WILLUGHBY (1635–72). They had recognised that a
thorough reform of the treatment of the vegetable and animal kingdoms
had become necessary; that the only way of bringing order into the
existing chaos was that of arranging the various forms with regard to
their structure; that they must cease to be burdened with inapplicable
passages and quotations of the ancient writers, and to perpetuate
the erroneous or vague notions of their predecessors. They abandoned
speculation, and adhered to facts only. One of the first results, and
perhaps the most important, of their method was, that having recognised
the “species” as such, they defined this term, and fixed it as the
base, from which all sound zoological knowledge has to start.
Although they had divided their work thus that Ray attended to the
plants principally, and Willughby to the animals, the “Historia
piscium” (Oxford, 1686, fol.), which bears Willughby’s name on the
titlepage, and was edited by Ray, is clearly their joint production. A
great part of the observations contained in it were collected during
their common journeys in Great Britain and on the Continent, and it is
no exaggeration to say that at that time these two Englishmen knew the
fishes of the Continent, especially those of Germany, better than any
other Continental zoologist.
By the definition of fishes as animals with blood, breathing by gills,
provided with a single ventricle of the heart, covered with scales or
naked; the Cetaceans are excluded. Yet, at a later period Ray appears
to have been afraid of so great an innovation as the separation of
whales from fishes, and, therefore, he invented a definition of fish
which comprises both. The fishes proper are then arranged in the
first place according to the cartilaginous or osseous nature of the
skeleton; further subdivisions being formed with regard to the general
form of the body, the presence or absence of ventral fins, the soft or
spinous structure of the dorsal rays, the number of dorsal fins, etc.
Not less than 420 species are thus arranged and described, of which
about 180 were known to the authors from autopsy: a comparatively
small proportion, descriptions and figures still forming at that time
in a great measure a substitute for collections and museums. With the
increasing accumulation of forms the want of a fixed nomenclature is
now more and more felt.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: P. Artedi.]
PETER ARTEDI would have been a great ichthyologist if Ray or
Willughby had never preceded him. But he was fully conscious of the
fact that both had prepared the way for him, and therefore he derived
all possible advantages from their works. Born in 1705 in Sweden, he
studied with Linnæus at Upsala; from an early period he devoted himself
entirely to the study of fishes, and was engaged in the arrangement and
description of the ichthyological collection of _Seba_, a wealthy
Dutchman who had formed the then perhaps richest museum, when he was
accidentally drowned in one of the canals of Amsterdam in the year
1734, at an age of twenty-nine years. His manuscripts were fortunately
rescued by an Englishman, Cliffort, and edited by his early friend
Linnæus.
The work is divided into the following parts:--
1. In the “Bibliotheca Ichthyologica” Artedi gives a very complete list
of all preceding authors who have 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 of all the various modifications of the organs,
distinguishes 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 fixes 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 same manner
which is adopted in the systematic works of the present day.
[Sidenote: Linnæus.]
Artedi has been justly called the Father of Ichthyology. So perfect was
his treatment of the subject, that even LINNÆUS could no more
improve it, only modify and add to it; and as far as Ichthyology is
concerned, Linnæus has scarcely done anything beyond applying binominal
terms to the species properly described and classified by Artedi.
Artedi had divided the fishes proper into four orders, viz.
_Malacopterygii_, _Acanthopterygii_, _Branchiostegi_, and
_Chondropterygii_, of which the third only, according to our present
knowledge, appears to be singularly heterogeneous, as it comprises
_Balistes_, _Ostracion_, _Cyclopterus_, and _Lophius_. Linnæus, besides
separating the Cetaceans entirely from the class of fishes (at least
since the 10th edition of the “Systema Naturæ”) abandoned Artedi’s
order of Branchiostegi, but substituted a scarcely more natural
combination by joining it with Artedi’s Chondropterygians, under the
name of “Amphibia nantes.”
His classification of the genera appears in the 12th edition of the
“Systema,” thus--
AMPHIBIA NANTES.
_Spiraculis compositis._
Petromyzon.
Raia.
Squalus.
Chimæra.
_Spiraculis solitariis._
Lophius.
Acipenser.
Cyclopterus.
Balistes.
Ostracion.
Tetrodon.
Diodon.
Centriscus.
Syngnathus.
Pegasus.
PISCES APODES.
Muræna.
Gymnotus.
Trichiurus.
Anarhichas.
Ammodytes.
Ophidium.
Stromateus.
Xiphias.
PISCES JUGULARES.
Callionymus.
Uranoscopus.
Trachinus.
Gadus.
Blennius.
PISCES THORACICI.
Cepola.
Echeneis.
Coryphæna.
Gobius.
Cottus.
Scorpæna.
Zeus.
Pleuronectes.
Chæetodon.
Sparus.
Labrus.
Sciæna.
Perca.
Gasterosteus.
Scomber.
Mullus.
Trigla.
PISCES ABDOMINALES.
Cobitis.
Amia.
Silurus.
Teuthis.
Loricaria.
Salmo.
Fistularia.
Esox.
Elops.
Argentina.
Atherina.
Mugil.
Mormyrus.
Exocœtus.
Polynemus.
Clupea.
Cyprinus.
[Sidenote: Gronow and Klein.]
Two contemporaries of _Linnæus_ attempted a systematic arrangement
of fishes; both had considerable opportunities for their study,
especially in possessing extensive collections; but neither exercised
any influence on the progress of Ichthyology. The one, L. T. GRONOW,
a German who resided in Holland, closely followed the arrangements
proposed by Artedi and Linnæus, and increased the number of genera and
species from the contents of his own museum. He published two works,
“Museum Ichthyologicum” (Lugd. 1754–6, fol.), and “Zoophylacium” (Lugd.
1763–81, fol.); a posthumous work, containing numerous excellent
descriptions of new forms was published by J. E. Gray in 1854 under the
title of “Systema Ichthyologicum.” To Gronow also is due the invention
of preparing flat skins of fishes in a dry state, and preserving them
in the manner of a herbarium. The specimens thus prepared by him belong
to the oldest which have been preserved down to our time.
Much less important are the ichthyological labours of J. T. KLEIN
(1685–1759). They are embodied in five parts (_Missus_) of a work
entitled “Historia naturalis piscium” (Sedæ, 1740–9, 4to.) He regarded
a system merely as the means of recognising the various forms of
animals, not as the expression of their natural affinities; and that
method seemed to him to be the most perfect by which an animal could
be most readily determined. He eschewed all reference to minute or
anatomical characters. Hence his system is a series of the most
unnatural combinations, and we cannot be surprised that Linnæus passed
in silence over Klein’s labours.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Pupils and Successors of Linnæus]
The works of Artedi and Linnæus excited fresh activity, more especially
in Scandinavia, Holland, Germany, and England, such as has not been
equalled in the history of biological science either before or
after. Whilst some of the pupils and followers of Linnæus devoted
themselves to an examination and study of the fauna of their native
countries, others proceeded on voyages of discovery to foreign and
distant countries. Of these latter the following may be specially
mentioned:--_O. Fabricius_ worked out the Fauna of Greenland, _Kalm_
collected in North America, _Hasselquist_ in Egypt and Palestine,
_Brünnich_ in the Mediterranean, _Osbeck_ in Java and China,
_Thurnberg_ in Japan; _Forskål_ examined and described the fishes of
the Red Sea; _Steller_, _Pallas_, _S. T. Gmelin_, and _Güldenstedt_
traversed nearly the whole of the Russian Empire in Europe and
Asia. Others attached themselves as naturalists to the celebrated
circumnavigators of the last century, like the two _Forsters_ (father
and son), and _Solander_, who accompanied Cook; _Commerson_, who
travelled with Bougainville; and _Sonnerat_. Numerous new and startling
forms were discovered by those men, and the foundation was laid of the
knowledge of the geographical distribution of animals.
Of those who studied the fishes of their native country the most
celebrated are _Pennant_ (Great Britain), _O. F. Müller_ (Denmark),
_Duhamel_ (France), _Meidinger_ (Austria), _Cornide_ (Spain), _Parra_
(Cuba).
The materials brought together by those and other zoologists were so
numerous that, not long after the death of Linnæus, the necessity was
felt of collecting them in a compendious form. Several compilators
undertook this task; they embodied the recent discoveries in new
editions of Artedi’s and Linné’s classical works, but not possessing
either a knowledge of the subject or any critical discernment, they
only succeeded in covering those noble monuments under a mass of
confused rubbish. For Ichthyology it was fortunate that two men at
least, Bloch and Lacépède, made it a subject of long and original
research.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: M. E. Bloch.]
MARK ELIEZER BLOCH, born in the year 1723 at Anspach in Germany,
practised as a physician in Berlin; he had reached an age of fifty-six
years when he commenced to write on ichthyological subjects. To
commence at his age a work in which he intended not only to give full
descriptions of the species known to him from specimens or drawings,
but also to illustrate every species in a style truly magnificent for
his time, was an undertaking of the execution of which an ordinary man
would have despaired. Yet he accomplished not only this task, but even
more, as we shall see hereafter.
His work consists of two divisions:--
1. “Oeconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlands” (Berl.
1782–4, 4to. Plates in fol.)
2. “Naturgeschichte der auslændischen Fische” (Berl. 1785–95, 4to.
Plates in fol.)
Bloch’s work is unique, and probably will for ever remain so. Although
Cuvier fifty years later undertook a similar general work on fishes,
the subject had then become too extensive to allow of an attempt of
giving illustrations of all the species, or illustrations of a similar
size and costliness.
The first division of the work, which is devoted to a description of
the fishes of Germany, is entirely original, and based upon Bloch’s
own observations. His descriptions as well as figures were made from
nature, and are, with but few exceptions, still serviceable; many
continue to be the best existing in literature.
Bloch was less fortunate and is much less reliable in his natural
history of foreign fishes. For many of the species he had to rely
on more or less incorrect drawings and descriptions of travellers;
frequently, also, he was deceived as to the origin of specimens which
he acquired by purchase. Hence his accounts contain numerous confusing
errors which it would have been difficult to correct, if not nearly the
whole of the materials on which his work is based had been preserved in
the collections at Berlin.
After the completion of his Ichthyology Bloch occupied himself with
systematic work. He prepared a general system of fishes, in which he
arranged not only those described in his great work, but also those
with which he had become acquainted afterwards from the descriptions of
others. The work was ably edited and published after Bloch’s death by a
philologist, _J. G. Schneider_, under the title “M. E. Blochii Systema
ichthyologiæ iconibus ex. illustratum” (Berl. 1801, 8vo.) The number of
species enumerated in it amounts to 1519. The system is based upon the
number of the fins, the various orders being termed _Hendecapterygii_,
_Decapterygii_, etc. We need not add that an artificial method like
this led to the most unnatural combinations or severances.
[Sidenote: Lacépède.]
Bloch’s Ichthyology remained for many years the standard work, and,
by the great number of excellent illustrations, proved a most useful
guide to the student. But as regards originality of thought, Bloch was
far surpassed by his contemporary, B. G. E. DE LACÉPÈDE, born at Agen,
in France, in 1756, a man of great and general erudition, who died as
Professor of the Museum of Natural History of Paris in 1826.
Lacépède had to contend with great difficulties in the preparation
of his “Histoire des Poissons” (Paris, 1798–1803, 4to, in 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 at least inaccessible, to him for a long
time. Therefore we cannot be surprised that his work abounds in all
those errors to which a compiler is subject. The same species not only
appears under two and more distinct specific names, but it sometimes
happens that the author understands so little the source from which
he derives his information that the description is referred to one
genus and the accompanying figure to another. The names of genera are
unduly multiplied; and the figures with which the work is illustrated
are far inferior to those of Bloch. Thus the influence of Lacépède
on the progress of Ichthyology was infinitely less than that of his
fellow-labourer; and the labour caused to his successors by correcting
the numerous errors into which he has fallen, probably outweighs the
assistance which they derived from his work.
[Sidenote: Anatomists.]
The work of the principal cultivators of Ichthyology in the period
between Ray and Lacépède was chiefly systematic and descriptive, but
also the internal organisation of fishes received attention from more
than one great anatomist. _Haller_, _Camper_, and _Hunter_, examined
the nervous system and organs of sense; and more especially _Alexander
Monro_ (the son) published a classical work, “The Structure and
Physiology of Fishes explained and compared with those of Man and other
Animals” (Edinb. 1785, fol.) The electric organs of fishes (_Torpedo_
and _Gymnotus_) were examined by _Réaumur_, _Allamand_, _Bancroft_,
_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 Salmonidæ was known and practised by
_Gleditsch_ (1764).
[Sidenote: Faunists.]
Bloch and Lacépède’s works were almost immediately succeeded by the
labours of _Cuvier_, but his early publications were of necessity
tentative, preliminary, and fragmentary, so that a short period elapsed
before the spirit infused by this great anatomist into Ichthyology
could exercise its influence on all workers in this field. Several
of such antecuvierian works must be mentioned on account of their
importance to our knowledge of certain Faunas: the “Descriptions and
Figures of Two Hundred Fishes collected at Vizagapatam on the coast
of Coromandel” (Lond. 1803; 2 vols. in fol.), by _Patrick Russel_;
and “An Account of the Fishes found in the River Ganges and its
branches” (Edinb. 1822; 2 vols. in 4to), by _F. Hamilton_ (formerly
_Buchanan_)--works distinguished by a greater accuracy of their
drawings (especially in the latter), than was ever attained before.
A “Natural History of British Fishes” was published by _E. Donovan_
(Lond. 8vo, 1802–8); and the Mediterranean Fauna formed the study of
the lifetime of _A. Risso_ (“Ichthyologie de Nice.” Paris, 1810, 8vo;
and “Histoire naturelle de l’Europe Meridionale.” Paris, 1827, 8vo). A
slight beginning in the description of the fishes of the United States
was made by _S. L. Mitchell_, who published, besides various papers, a
“Memoir on the Ichthyology of New York,” in 1815.[2]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: G. Cuvier.]
G. CUVIER did not occupy himself with the study of fishes merely
because this class formed part of the “Règne animal,” but he devoted
himself to it with particular predilection. The investigation of their
anatomy, and especially of their skeleton, was taken up by him at an
early period, and continued until he had succeeded in completing so
perfect a framework of the system of the whole class that his immediate
successors could content themselves with filling up those details for
which their master had no leisure. Indefatigable in examining all the
external and internal characters of the fishes of a rich collection, he
ascertained the natural affinities of the infinite variety of fishes,
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 opened connections with
almost every accessible part of the globe; not only French travellers
and naturalists, but also Germans, Englishmen, Americans, rivalled one
another to assist him with collections; and for many years the Muséum
of the Jardin des Plantes was the centre where all ichthyological
treasures were deposited. Thus Cuvier brought together a collection
the like of which had never been seen before, and which, as it contains
all the materials on which his labours were based, must still be
considered to be the most important. Soon after the year 1820, Cuvier,
assisted by one of his pupils, A. VALENCIENNES, commenced his great
work on fishes, “Histoire naturelles des Poissons,” of which the first
volume appeared in 1828. The earlier volumes, in which Cuvier himself
took his share, bear evidence of the freshness and love with which both
authors devoted themselves to their task. After Cuvier’s death in 1832
the work was left entirely in the hands of Valenciennes, whose energy
and interest gradually slackened, to rise to the old standard 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.
There exist several editions of the work, which, however, have the same
text. One, printed in 8vo, with coloured or plain figures, is the one
in common use among ichthyologists. A more luxurious edition in 4to has
a different pagination, and therefore is most inconvenient to use.
As mentioned above, the various parts of the work are very unequally
worked out. Many of the species are described in so masterly a
manner that a greater excellency of method can hardly be conceived.
The history of the literature of these species is entered into with
minuteness and critical discernment; but in the later volumes, numerous
species are introduced into the system without any description, or
with a few words only, comparing a species with one or more of its
congeners. Cuvier himself, at a late period of his life, seems to have
grown indifferent as to the exact definition of his species: a failing
commonly observed among Zoologists when attention to descriptive
details becomes to them a tedious task. What is more surprising is,
that a man of his anatomical and physiological knowledge should have
overlooked the fact that secondary sexual characters are developed in
fishes as in any other class of animals, and that fishes undergo great
changes during growth; and, consequently, that he described almost
all such sexual forms and different stages of growth under distinct
specific and even generic names.
The system finally adopted by Cuvier is the following:--
_A._ POISSONS OSSEUX.
I.--A BRANCHIES EN PEIGNES OU EN LAMES.
1. A MÂCHOIRE SUPÉRIEURE LIBRE.
a. _Acanthoptérygiens._
Percoïdes.
Polynèmes.
Mulles.
Joues cuirassées.
Scienoïdes.
Sparoïdes.
Chétodonoïdes.
Scomberoïdes.
Muges.
Branchies labyrinthiques.
Lophioïdes.
Gobioïdes.
Labroïdes.
b. _Malacoptérygiens._
_Abdominaux._
Cyprinoïdes.
Siluroïdes.
Salmonoïdes.
Clupeoïdes.
Lucioïdes.
_Subbrachiens._
Sparoïdes.
Pleuronectes.
Discoboles.
_Apodes._
Murenoïdes.
2. A MÂCHOIRE SUPÉRIEURE FIXÉE.
Sclérodermes.
Gymnodontes.
II. A BRANCHIES EN FORME DE HOUPPES.
Lophobranches.
_B._ CARTILAGINEUX OU CHONDROPTÉRYGIENS.
Sturioniens.
Plagiostomes.
Cyclostomes.
We have to compare this system with that of Linnæus if we wish
to measure the gigantic stride Ichthyology has made during the
intervening period of seventy years. The various characters employed
for classification have been examined throughout the whole class,
and their relative importance has been duly weighed and understood.
Though Linnæus had formed a category of “Amphibia nantes” for fishes
with a cartilaginous skeleton, which should coincide with Cuvier’s
“Poissons Cartilagineux,” he had failed to understand the very nature
of cartilage, apparently comprising by this term any skeletal framework
of less firmity than ordinary bone. Hence he considered _Lophius_,
_Cyclopterus_, _Syngnathus_ to be cartilaginous fishes. Adopting the
position and development of the ventral fins as a highly important
character, he was obliged to associate fishes with rudimentary and
inconspicuous ventral fins, like _Trichiurus_, _Xiphias_, etc., with
the true Eels. The important category of a “family” appears now in
Cuvier’s system fully established as that intermediate between genus
and order. Important changes in Cuvier’s system have been made and
proposed by his successors, but in the main it is still that of the
present day.
Cuvier had extended his researches beyond the living forms, into
the field of palæontology; he was the first to observe the close
resemblance of the scales of the fossil _Palæoniscus_ to those of the
living _Polypterus_ and _Lepidosteus_, the prolongation and identity of
structure of the upper caudal lobe in _Palæoniscus_ and the Sturgeons,
the presence of peculiar “fulcra” on the anterior margin of the dorsal
fin in _Palæoniscus_ and _Lepidosteus_: inferring from these facts
that that fossil genus was allied _either_ to the Sturgeons _or_ to
_Lepidosteus_. But it did not occur to him that there was a close
relationship between those recent fishes. _Lepidosteus_ and, with
it, the fossil genus remained in his system a member of the order of
_Malacopterygii abdominales_.
It was left to L. AGASSIZ (born 1807, died 1873) to point out the
importance of the character of the structure of the scales, and to open
a path towards the knowledge of a whole new sub-class of fishes, the
_Ganoidei_.
Impressed with the fact that the peculiar scales of _Polypterus_ and
_Lepidosteus_ are common to all fossil osseous fishes down to the
chalk, he takes the structure of the scales generally as the base for
an ichthyological system, and distinguishes four orders:--
1. _Placoids._--Without scales proper, but with scales of enamel,
sometimes large, sometimes small and reduced to mere points (Rays,
Sharks, and Cyclostomi, with the fossil _Hybodontes_).
2. _Ganoids._--With angular bony scales, covered with a thick
stratum of enamel: to this order belong the fossil Lepidoides,
Sauroides, Pycnodontes, and Coelacanthi; the recent Polypterus,
Lepidosteus, Sclerodermi, Gymnodontes, Lophobranches, and Siluroides;
also the Sturgeons.
3. _Ctenoids._--With rough scales, which have their free margins
denticulated: Chætodontidæ, Pleuronectidæ, Percidæ, Polyacanthi,
Sciænidæ, Sparidæ, Scorpænidæ, Aulostomi.
4. _Cycloids._--With smooth scales, the hind margin of which lacks
denticulation: Labridæ, Mugilidæ, Scombridæ, Gadoidei, Gobiidæ,
Murænidæ, Lucioidei, Salmonidæ, Clupeidæ, Cyprinidæ.
We have no hesitation in affirming that if Agassiz had had an
opportunity of acquiring a more extensive and intimate knowledge of
existing fishes before his energies were absorbed in the study of
their fossil remains, he himself would have recognised the artificial
character of his classification. The distinctions between cycloid and
ctenoid scales, between placoid and ganoid fishes are vague, and can
hardly be maintained. As far as the living and post-cretacean forms
are concerned, the vantage-ground gained by Cuvier was abandoned
by him; and therefore his system could never supersede that of his
predecessors, and finally shared the fate of every classification based
on the modifications of one organ only. But Agassiz has the merit of
having opened an immense new field of research by his study of the
infinite variety of fossil forms. In his principal work, “Recherches
sur les Poissons fossiles,” (Neuchatel, 1833–43, 4to, atlas in fol.),
he placed them before the world arranged in a methodical manner, with
excellent descriptions and illustrations. His power of discernment and
penetration in determining even the most fragmentary remains is truly
astonishing; and if his order of Ganoids is an assemblage of forms very
different from that as it is circumscribed now, he was at any rate the
first who recognised that such an order of fishes exists.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: J. Müller.]
The discoverer of the _Ganoidei_ was succeeded by their explorer,
JOHANNES MÜLLER (born 1801, died 1858). In his classical memoir “Ueber
den Bau und die Grenzen der Ganoiden” (Berlin, 1846; 4to), he showed
that the Ganoids differed from all the other osseous fishes, and agreed
with the Plagiostomes, in the structure of their heart. By this primary
character, all heterogeneous elements, as _Siluroids_, _Osteoglossidæ_,
etc., were eliminated from the order as understood by Agassiz. On the
other hand, he did not recognise the affinity of _Lepidosiren_ to the
Ganoids, but established for it a distinct sub-class, _Dipnoi_, which
he placed at the opposite end of the system. By his researches into the
anatomy of the Lampreys and Amphioxus, their typical distinctness from
other cartilaginous fishes was proved; they became the types of two
other sub-classes, _Cyclostomi_ and _Leptocardii_.
Müller proposed several other not unimportant modifications of the
Cuvierian system; and although all cannot be maintained as the most
natural arrangements, yet his researches have given us a much more
complete knowledge of the organisation of the Teleosteous fishes,
and later enquiries have shown that, on the whole, the combinations
proposed by him require only some further modification and another
definition to render them perfectly natural.
Under the name of _Pharyngognathi_ he combined fishes with the lower
pharyngeals coalesced into one bone, viz. the Labroids, Chromides, and
Scombresoces. The association of the third family with the two former
seemed to himself a somewhat arbitrary proceeding; and it had to be
abandoned again, when a number of fishes which cannot be separated
from the Acanthopterygians, were found to possess the same united
pharyngeals.
A more natural combination is the union of the Cod-fishes with the
Flat-fishes into the order _Anacanthini_. Flat-fishes are in fact
nothing but asymmetrical Cod-fishes. Müller separates them from the
remaining Malacopterygians by the absence of a connecting duct between
the air-bladder and oesophagus. However, it must be admitted that the
examination of those fishes, and especially of the young stages, is not
complete enough to raise the question beyond every doubt, whether the
presence or absence of that duct is an absolutely distinctive character
between Anacanths and Malacopterygians.
Many of the families established by Cuvier were reexamined and better
defined by Müller, as may be seen from the following outline of his
system:--
Sub-classis I.--Dipnoi.
Ordo I.--Sirenoidei.
Fam. 1. Sirenoidei.
Sub-classis II.--Teleostei.
Ordo I.--Acanthopteri.
Fam. 1. Percoidei.
„ 2. Cataphracti.
„ 3. Sparoidei.
„ 4. Sciænoidei.
„ 5. Labyrinthiformes.
„ 6. Mugiloidei.
„ 7. Notacanthini.
„ 8. Scomberoidei.
„ 9. Squamipennes.
„ 10. Taenioidei.
„ 11. Gobioidei.
„ 12. Blennioidei.
„ 13. Pediculati.
„ 14. Theutyes.
„ 15. Fistulares.
Ordo II.--Anacanthini.
Sub-ordo I.--Anacanthini sub-brachii.
Fam. 1. Gadoidei.
„ 2. Pleuronectides.
Sub-ordo II.--Anacanthini apodes.
Fam. 1. Ophidini.
Ordo III.--Pharyngognathi.
Sub-ordo I.--Pharyngognathi acanthopterygii.
Fam. 1. Labroidei cycloidei.
„ 2. Labroidei ctenoidei.
„ 3. Chromides.
Sub-ordo II.--Pharyngognathi malacopterygii.
Fam. 1. Scomberesoces.
Ordo IV.--Physostomi.
Sub-ordo I.--Physostomi abdominales.
Fam. 1. Siluroidei.
„ 2. Cyprinoidei.
„ 3. Characini.
„ 4. Cyprinodontes.
„ 5. Mormyri.
„ 6. Esoces.
„ 7. Galaxiæ.
„ 8. Salmones.
„ 9. Scopelini.
„ 10. Clupeidæ.
„ 11. Heteropygii.
Sub-ordo II.--Physostomi apodes s. anguillares.
Fam. 12. Murænoidei.
„ 13. Gymnotini.
„ 14. Symbranchii.
Ordo V.--Plectognathi.
Fam. 1. Balistini.
„ 2. Ostraciones.
„ 3. Gymnodontes.
Ordo VI.--Lophobranchii.
Fam. 1. Lophobranchi.
Sub-classis III.--Ganoidei.
Ordo I.--Holostei.
Fam. 1. Lepidosteini.
„ 2. Polypterini.
Ordo II.--Chondrostei.
Fam. 1. Acipenserini,
„ 2. Spatulariæ.
Sub-classis IV.--Elasmobranchi s. Selachii.
Ordo I.--Plagiostomi.
Sub-ordo I.--Squalidæ.
Fam. 1. Scyllia.
„ 2. Nyctitantes.
„ 3. Lamnoidei.
„ 4. Alopeciæ.
„ 5. Cestraciones.
„ 6. Rhinodontes.
„ 7. Notidani.
„ 8. Spinaces.
„ 9. Scymnoidei.
„ 10. Squatinæ.
Sub-ordo II.--Rajidæ.
Fam. 11. Squatinorajæ.
„ 12. Torpedines.
„ 13. Rajæ.
„ 14. Trygones.
„ 15. Myliobatides.
„ 16. Cephalopteræ.
Ordo II.--Holocephali.
Fam. 1. Chimaeræ.
Sub-classis V.--Marsipobranchii s. Cyclostomi.
Ordo I.--Hyperoartii.
Fam. 1. Petromyzonini.
Ordo II.--Hyperotreti.
Fam. 1. Myxinoidei.
Sub-classis VI.--Leptocardii.
Ordo I.--Amphioxini.
Fam. 1. Amphioxini.
[Sidenote: Discovery of Ceratodus.]
The discovery (in the year 1871) of a living representative of a
genus hitherto believed to be long extinct, _Ceratodus_, threw
a new light on the affinities of Fishes. The author who had the good
fortune of examining this fish, was enabled to show that, on the one
hand, it was a form most closely allied to _Lepidosiren_; on the
other, that it could not be separated from the Ganoid fishes, and
therefore that also _Lepidosiren_ was a Ganoid: a relation pointed
at already by Huxley in a previous paper on “Devonian Fishes.” This
discovery led to further considerations[3] of the relative characters
of Müller’s sub-classes, and to the system which is followed in the
present work.
Having followed the development of the ichthyological system down to
the latest time, we have to retrace our steps to enumerate the most
important contributions to Ichthyology which appeared contemporaneously
with or subsequently to the publication of Cuvier and Valenciennes’s
great work. As in other branches of Zoology, activity increased almost
with every year; and for convenience’s sake we may arrange these works
in three rubrics.
[Sidenote: Recent Works.]
I.--VOYAGES, CONTAINING GENERAL ACCOUNTS OF ZOOLOGICAL
COLLECTIONS.
A. _French._
1. “Voyage autour du monde sur les Corvettes de S. M. l’Uranie et la
Physicienne, sous le commandement de M. Freycinet. Zoologie: Poissons
par _Quoy_ et _Gaimard_.” (Paris, 1824, 4to, atlas fol.)
2. “Voyage de la Coquille. Zoologie par _Lesson_.” (Paris,
1826–30, 4to, atlas fol.)
3. “Voyage de l’Astrolabe, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont
d’Urville. Poissons par _Quoy_ et _Gaimard_.” (Paris, 1834,
8vo, atlas fol.)
4. “Voyage au Pôle Sud par M. J. Dumont d’Urville. Poissons par
_Hombron_ et _Jacquinot_.” (Paris, 1853–4, 8vo, atlas fol.)
B. _English._
1. “Voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur. Fishes by _J. Richardson_.” (Lond.
1844–5, 4to.)
2. “Voyage of H.M.S.S. Erebus and Terror. Fishes by _J. Richardson_.”
(Lond. 1846. 4to.)
3. “Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. Fishes by _L. Jenyns_.” (Lond. 1842,
4to.)
4. “Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger. Fishes by _A. Günther_.” (in
course of publication).
C. _German._
1. “Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novara. Fische von _R.
Kner_.” (Wien. 1865, 4to.)
II.--FAUNAE.
A. _Great Britain._
1. _R. Parnell_, “The Natural History of the Fishes of the Firth
of Forth.” (Edinb. 1838, 8vo.)
2. _W. Yarrell_, “A History of British Fishes.” (3d edit. Lond.
1859, 8vo.)
3. _J. Couch_, “A History of the Fishes of the British Islands.”
(Lond. 1862–5, 8vo.)
B. _Denmark and Scandinavia._
1. _H. Kröyer_, “Danmark’s Fiske.” (Kjöbnh. 1838–53, 8vo.)
2. _S. Nilsson_, “Skandinavisk Fauna.” (Vol. IV. Fiskarna. Lund.
1855, 8vo.)
3. _Fries och Ekström_, “Skandinavians Fiskar.” (Stockh. 1836,
4to, with excellent plates.)
C. _Russia._
1. _Nordmann_, “Ichthyologie Pontique,” in “Voyage dans la Russie
méridionale de _Demidoff_.” (Tom. iii. Paris, 1840, 8vo, atlas
fol.)
D. _Germany._
1. _Heckel_ and _Kner_, “Die Süsswasser-fische der
Oesterreichischen Monarchie.” (Leipz. 1858, 8vo.)
2. _C. T. E. Siebold_, “Die Süsswasser-fische von Mitteleuropa.”
(Leipz. 1863, 8vo.)
E. _Italy and Mediterranean._
1. _Bonaparte_, “Iconografia della Fauna Italica.” Tom. iii.
Pesci. (Roma, 1832–41, fol.) (Incomplete.)
2. _Costa_, “Fauna del Regno di Napoli.” Pesci. (Napoli, 4to,
about 1850.) (Incomplete.)
F. _France._
1. _E. Blanchard_, “Les Poissons des eaux douces de la France.”
(Paris, 1866, 8vo.)
G. _Pyrenean Peninsula._
The freshwater Fish-fauna of Spain and Portugal was almost unknown,
until _F. Steindachner_ paid some visits to those countries for
the purpose of exploring the principal rivers. His discoveries are
described in several papers in the “Sitzungsberichte der Akademie
zu Wien.” _B. du Bocage_ and _F. Capello_ contributed towards the
knowledge of the marine fishes on the coast of Portugal. (“Jorn.
Scienc. Acad. Lisb.”)
H. _North America._
1. _J. Richardson_, “Fauna Boreali Americana.” Part III. Fishes.
(Lond. 1836, 4to.) The species described in this work are nearly all
from the British possessions in the North.
2. _Dekay_, “Zoology of New York.” Part IV. Fishes. (New York,
1842, 4to.)
3. “Reports of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries.”
(5 vols. Washingt. 1873–79, 8vo. In progress. Contains most valuable
information.)
Besides these works, numerous descriptions of North American freshwater
fishes have been published in the Reports of the various U. S.
Government expeditions, and in North American scientific journals, by
_Storer_, _Baird_, _Girard_, _W. O. Ayres_, _Cope_, _Jordan_, _Brown
Goode_, etc.; but a good general, and especially critical, account of
the fishes of the United States is still a desideratum.
I.--_Japan._
1. “Fauna Japonica.” Poissons par _H. Schlegel_. (Lugd. Bat. 1850,
fol.)
J.--_East Indies; Tropical parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans._
1. _E. Rüppell_, “Atlas zu der Reise im Nördlichen Afrika.”
(Frankf. 1828, fol.)
2. _E. Rüppell_, “Neue Wirbelthiere. Fische.” (Frankf. 1837, fol.)
These two works form the standard works for the student of the Fishes
of the Red Sea, and are distinguished by a rare conscientiousness and
faithfulness of the descriptions and figures; so that there is no
other part of the tropical seas, with the fishes of which we are so
intimately acquainted, as with those of the Red Sea. But these works
have a still wider range of usefulness, in as much as only a small
proportion of the fishes is limited to that area, the majority being
distributed over the Indian Ocean into Polynesia. Rüppel’s works were
supplemented by the two first of the following works:--
3. _R. L. Playfair_ and _A. Günther_, “The Fishes of Zanzibar.” (Lond.
1866, 4to); and
4. _C. B. Klunzinger_, “Synopsis der Fische des Rothen Meers.”
(Wien. 1870–1, 8vo.)
5. _T. Cantor_, “Catalogue of Malayan Fishes.” (Calcutta, 1850,
8vo.)
6. _F. Day_, “The Fishes of India.” (Lond. 1875, 4to, in
progress); contains an account of the freshwater and marine species,
and is not yet complete.
7. _A. Günther_, “Die Fische der Südsee.” (Hamburg, 4to; from
1873, in progress.)
Unsurpassed in activity, as regards the exploration of the fish fauna
of the East Indian Archipelago, is _P. Bleeker_, a surgeon in the
service of the Dutch East Indian Government (born 1819, died 1878),
who, from the year 1840, for nearly thirty years, amassed immense
collections of the fishes of the various islands, and described them
in extremely numerous papers, published chiefly in the Journals of the
Batavian Society. When his descriptions and the arrangement of his
materials evoked some criticism, it must be remembered that, at the
time when he commenced his labours, and for many years afterwards,
he stood alone, without the aid of a previously named collection on
which to base his first researches, and without other works but that
of Cuvier and Valenciennes. He had to create for himself a method of
distinguishing species and of describing them; and afterwards it would
have been difficult for him to abandon his original method and the
principles by which he had been guided for so many years. His desire
of giving a new name to every individual, to every small assemblage
of species wherever practicable, or of changing an old name, detracts
not a little from the satisfaction with which his works would be
used otherwise. It is also surprising that a man with his anatomical
knowledge and unusual facilities should have been satisfied with the
merely external examination of the specimens. But none of his numerous
articles contain anything relating to the anatomy, physiology, or
habits of the fishes which came under his notice; hence his attempts
at systematic arrangement are very far from indicating an advance in
Ichthyology.
Soon after his return to Europe (1860) Bleeker commenced to collect the
final results of his labours in a grand work, illustrated by coloured
plates, “Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises.”
(Amsterd. fol. 1862); the publication of which was interrupted by the
author’s death in 1878.
K.--_Africa._
1. _A. Günther_, “The Fishes of the Nile” in Petherick’s “Travels
in Central Africa.” (Lond. 1869, 8vo.)
2. _W. Peters_, “Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nach Mossambique.
IV. Flussfische.” (Berl. 1868, 4to.)
L.--_West Indies and South America._
1. _L. Agassiz_, “Selecta genera et species Piscium, quæ in
itinere per Brasiliam, collegit J. B. de Spix.” (Monach. 1829, fol.)
2. _F. de Castlenau_, “Animaux nouveaux ou rares, recueillis
pendant l’expedition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud.
Poissons.” (Paris, 1855, 4to.)
3. _A. Günther_, “An account of the Fishes of the States of
Central America.” (In Trans. Zool. Soc. 1868.)
4. _L. Vaillant_ and _F. Bocourt_, “Mission scientifique au
Mexique et dans l’Amérique centrale. Poissons.” (Paris, 1874, 4to.) (In
progress.)
_F. Poey_, the celebrated naturalist of Havannah, devoted many
years of study to the Fishes of Cuba, His papers and memoirs are
published partly in two periodicals, issued by himself, under the
title of “Memorias sobre la Historia natural de la Isle de Cuba” (from
1851), and “Repertorio Fisico-natural de la Isla de Cuba” (from 1865),
partly in North American scientific journals. And, finally, _F.
Steindachner_ has published many contributions, accompanied by
excellent figures, to our knowledge of the Fishes of Central and South
America.
M.--_New Zealand._
1. _F. W. Hutton_ and _J. Hector_, “Fishes of New Zealand.”
(Wellingt. 1872, 8vo.)
N.--_Arctic Regions._
1. _G. Lütken_, “A revised Catalogue of the Fishes of Greenland,”
in “Manual of the Natural History, Geology, and Physics of Greenland.”
(Lond. 1875, 8vo.) Although only a nominal list, this catalogue is
useful, as it contains references to all the principal works in which
Arctic fishes have been described. The fishes of Spitzbergen were
examined by _A. J. Malmgren_ (1865).
III.--ANATOMICAL WORKS.
The number of authors who worked on the anatomy of fishes is almost
as great as that of faunists; and we should go beyond the limits of
the present work if we mentioned more than the most prominent and
successful. _M. H. Rathke_, _J. Müller_, _J. Hyrtl_, and _H. Stannius_
left scarcely any organ unexamined, and their researches had a direct
bearing either on the relation of the class of fishes to the other
vertebrates, or on the systematic arrangement of the fishes themselves.
_E. E. von Baer_, _F. de Filippi_, _C. Vogt_, _W. His_, _W. K. Parker_,
and _F. M. Balfour_ worked at their embryology; _A. Kölliker_ and
_G. Pouchet_ at their histology. The osteology was specially treated
by _G. Bakker_, _F. C. Rosenthal_, _L. Agassiz_, and _C. Gegenbaur_;
the nervous system by _Gottsche_, _Philipeaux_, _Stannius_, _L.
de Sanctis_, _L. Stieda_, _Baudelot_ and _Miclucho-Maclay_; the
organ of hearing by _E. H. Weber_, _C. Hasse_, and _G. Retzius_.
The electric fishes were examined by _E. Geoffroy_, _C. Matteuci_,
_P. Pacini_, _T. Bilharz_, and _Max Schultze_. The development and
metamorphosis of the Lamperns was made the subject of research by _H.
Müller_, _M. Schultze_, and _P. Owsjannikow_; Müller’s examination of
_Branchiostoma_ was continued by _J. Marcusen_, _A. Kovalevsky_, _L.
Stieda_, _W. Müller_, _C. Hasse_, _T. Huxley_, and _F. M. Balfour_. The
most comprehensive accounts of the anatomy of fishes are contained in
the following works:--
1. _H. Stannius_, “Zootomic der Fische,” 2d edit. (Berl. 1854,
8vo.)
2. _R. Owen_, “Anatomy of Vertebrates,” vol. i. (Lond. 1866, 8vo.)
3. _R. Owen_, “Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology
of the Vertebrate Animals.” Part I. Fishes. (Lond. 1846, 8vo.)
4. _T. Huxley_, “A Manual of the Anatomy of Vertebrated Animals.”
(Lond. 1871, 16mo.)
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Latest Systematic Works.]
It has been mentioned above that the great work of Cuvier and
Valenciennes had been left incomplete. Several authors, therefore,
supplied detailed accounts of the orders omitted in that work. _Müller_
and _Henle_ published an account of the Plagiostomes, and _Kaup_ of
the Murænidæ and Lophobranchii. _A. Duméril_, finally, commenced an
“Histoire naturelle des Poissons ou Ichthyologie générale,” of which,
however, two volumes only appeared, containing a complete account
of the “Plagiostomes” (Paris, 1865, 8vo.), and of the “Ganoids and
Lophobranchs.” (Paris, 1870, 8vo.)
So great an activity had prevailed in Ichthyology since the publication
of the “Histoire naturelle” by Cuvier and Valenciennes, and the results
of the manifold enquiries were scattered over such a multitude of
publications, that it became imperative to collect again all these
materials in one comprehensive work. This was done in the “Catalogue
of Fishes,” published by the Trustees of the British Museum, in eight
volumes (Lond. 1859-70). Beside the species previously described
many new forms were added, the number total of species referred
to in those volumes amounting to 8525. As regards the systematic
arrangement--Müller’s system was adopted in the main, but the
definition of the families is much modified. This, however, need not be
further entered into here, and will become sufficiently apparent in the
subsequent parts of the present work.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Lower aspect of head of _Raia
lemprieri_.]