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.
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 Bloch. (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.