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. |
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.
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.