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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account