Belon, a French physician, deserves to be noticed in this place, as the first modern ichthyologist In the year 1553 he published his great work De ?iquatilious ; and in 1555 he produced another work, or rather the ichthyological part of the former, under the title, La nature et diversite des Poissons avec leurs Portraits. Although B.-Ion was more advantageously known as a traveller and ornitholo gist than as an ichthyologist, his labours in this last de partment were of service to the science. He did not at tempt any general system, but, by. collecting fishes into groups, he laid the lonndation of many natural families or genera. He separated the osseous from the cartilaginous flat fishes, and brought together the different species of sharks into one division. The wooden cuts which accom pany the work are not destitute of merit, if we take into consideration the state of the arts at the time.
In the year 1554, Rondelet, a professor of Physic at Montpelier, published his woi k De Piscibus Marinis. He has been rather ungraciously treated by ins countrymen, for saying that he was unable for some time to determine on the particular fish with which to begin the descriptions, and that he gave the preference to the Gilthead, because it was best known to the ancients and moderns, and highly prized as esculent food. In the course of his observations, he pointed out several distinguishing characters of fishes, which must have contributed to draw the attention of na turalists to their systematic arrangement. In the first four books, he treats of the differences observable among fish es, in regard to their food and haunts, their forms and functions. In the remaining books he describes the dif ferent species, in many cases forming these into natural groups. -His figures of fishes arc superior in execution to those of Belon.
The work of Sal vianus, which appeared in the same year at Rome, under the title .4quatilium ?inimalium Historic Tiber primus, cum eorundeni formis
ter of regret, that this method of communicating the history of the species has been in a great measure overlooked by succeeding ichthyologists.
Passing over a number of laborious compilers, who flou rished in the end of the sixteenth century, we come now to consider the merits of our countryman Willoughby, and his friend Ray. " These illustrious naturalists," says the in telligent President of the Linnman Society in his introduc tory discourse, " laboured together with uncommon ardour in the study of nature, and left scarcely any of her tribes un explored. But death, which so often disappoints the fair est hopes, cut of the former in the prime of life, before he had digested 016 materials, to the acquisition of which he had devoted his youth ; and they might all have been lost to the world, and his name have perished with them, but for the faithful friendship and truly scientific ardour of Ray. So close was the intercourse between these two naturalists, that it is not easy to assign each his clue share of merit. In deed Ray has been so partial to the fame of his departed friend, and has cherished his memory with such affection ate care, that we are in danger of attributing too much to Mr Willoughby, and too little to himself." The work of Willoughby, as revised by Ray, was pub lished in folio in 1686, under the title, De Historia Piscium libri quatuor, jussu et sumptibus Societatis Regic Londi nensis editi. • This work, the production of a laborious ob server and faithful recorder, may be considered as the ba sis of subsequent discoveries in the physiology of fishes. It is storehouse of facts, to which the student of ichthyology should frequently resort. The systematic arrangement employed in this work holds the first place among those systems, which appeared in the end of the seventeenth or beginning of the eighteenth centuries. The following synoptical view of this system will enable the reader to ascertain the state of the science at the period in which he wrote. The cetaceans fishes form the subject of the second book, the classification of which, as given by our author, we purposely omit.
.