The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ichthyology" to "Independence"

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ichthyology" to "Independence"This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ichthyology" to "Independence"Author: VariousRelease date: July 7, 2012 [eBook #40156]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "ICHTHYOLOGY" TO "INDEPENDENCE" ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ichthyology" to "Independence"Author: VariousRelease date: July 7, 2012 [eBook #40156]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ichthyology" to "Independence"

Author: Various

Release date: July 7, 2012 [eBook #40156]Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "ICHTHYOLOGY" TO "INDEPENDENCE" ***

Articles in This Slice

ICHTHYOLOGY(from Gr.ἰχθύς, fish, andλόγος, doctrine or treatise), 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. According to the views now generally adopted, all those vertebrate animals are referred to the class of fishes which combine the following characteristics: they live in water, and by means of gills or branchiae breathe air dissolved in water; the heart consists of a single ventricle and single atrium; the limbs, if present, are modified into fins, supplemented by unpaired median fins; and the skin is either naked or covered with scales or with osseous plates or bucklers. With few exceptions fishes are oviparous. There are, however, not a few members of this class which show a modification of one or more of these characteristics, and which, nevertheless, cannot be separated from it.

I. History and Literature down to 1880

The commencement of the history of ichthyology coincides with that of zoology generally. Aristotle (384-322B.C.) had a perfect knowledge of the general structure of fishes, which he clearly discriminates both from the aquatic animals with lungs and mammae,i.e.Cetaceans, and from the various groups of aquatic invertebrates. According to him: “the special characteristics of the true fishes consist in the branchiae and fins, the majority having four fins, but those of an elongate form, as the eels, having two only. Some, as theMuraena, lack the fins altogether. The rays swim with their whole body, which is spread out. The branchiae are sometimes furnished with an operculum, sometimes they are without one, as in the cartilaginous fishes.... No fish has hairs or feathers; most are covered with scales, but some have only a rough or a 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 caeca are close to the stomach, and vary 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; they open towards the vent, and are much enlarged in the spawning season. The scales become harder with age. Not being provided with lungs, fishes have no voice, but several can emit grunting sounds. They sleep like other animals. In most cases 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, and economic uses is, so far as it has been tested, surprisingly correct. Unfortunately, we too often lack the means of recognizing 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 vernacular names are subject to change, or may be entirely lost in course of time, and the difficulty of identifying his species is further increased by the circumstance that sometimes several popular names are applied by him to the same fish, or different stages of growth are designated by distinct names. The number of fishes known to Aristotle seems to have been about one hundred and fifteen, all of which are inhabitants of the Aegean Sea.

That one man should have laid so sure a basis for future progress in zoology is less surprising than that for about eighteen centuries a science which seemed to offer particular attractions to men gifted with power of observation was no further advanced. Yet such is the case. Aristotle’s successors remained satisfied to be his copiers or commentators, and to collect fabulous stories or vague notions. With few exceptions (such as Ausonius, who wrote a small poem, in which he describes from his own observations the fishes of the Moselle) authors abstained from original research; and it was not until about the middle of the 16th century that ichthyology made a new step in advance by the appearance of Belon, Rondelet and Salviani, who almost simultaneously published their great works, by which the idea of species was established.

P. Belon travelled in the countries bordering on the eastern part of the Mediterranean in the years 1547-1550; he collected rich stores of positive knowledge, which he embodied in several works. The one most important for theBelon.progress of ichthyology is that entitledDe aquatilibus libri duo(Paris, 1553). Belon knew about one hundred and ten fishes, of which he gives rude but generally recognizable figures. Although Belon rarely gives definitions of the terms used by him, it is not generally 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 those without it—two divisions corresponding in modern language to vertebrate and invertebrate aquatic animals. The former are classified by him according to size, the further sub-divisions being based on the structure of the skeleton, mode of propagation, number of limbs, form of the body and physical character of the habitat.

The work of the Roman ichthyologist H. Salviani (1514-1572), bears evidence of the high social position which the author held as physician to three popes. Its title isAquatilium animalium historia(Rome, 1554-1557, fol.). It treatsSalviani.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 overlooked by the author or artist. No attempt is made at a natural classification, but the allied forms are generally placed in close proximity. The descriptions are equal to those given by Belon, entering much into the details of the economy and uses 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 order. It could not fail to render ichthyology popular in the country to the fauna of which it was devoted, but it was not fitted to advance ichthyology as a science generally; in this respect Salviani is not to be compared with Rondelet or Belon.

G. Rondelet (1507-1557) had the great advantage over Belon of having received a medical education at Paris, and especially of having gone through a complete course of instruction in anatomy as a pupil of Guentherus of Andernach.Rondelet.This is conspicuous throughout his works—Libri de piscibus marinis(Lyons, 1554); andUniversae aquatilium historiae pars altera(Lyons, 1555). Nevertheless they cannot be regarded as more than considerably enlarged editions of Belon’s work. For, although he worked independently of the latter, the system adopted by him is characterized by the same absence of the true principles of classification. His work is almost entirely limited to European and chiefly to Mediterranean forms, and comprises no fewer than one hundred and ninety-seven marine and forty-seven fresh-water 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 of the distinctions, the external and internal parts, and the economy of fishes. Like Belon, he had no conception of the various categories of classification—confounding throughout his work the terms “genus” and “species,” but he had an intuitive notion of what his successors called a “species,” and his principal object was to give as much information as possible regarding such species.

For nearly a century the works of Belon and Rondelet continued to be the standard works on ichthyology; but the science did not remain stationary during that period. The attention of naturalists was now directed to the fauna of foreign countries, especially of the Spanish and Dutch possessions in the New World; and in Europe the establishment of anatomical schools and academies led to careful investigation of the internal anatomy of the most remarkable European forms. Limited as these efforts were as to their scope, they were sufficiently numerous to enlarge the views of naturalists, and to destroy that fatal dependence on preceding authorities which had kept in bonds even Rondelet and Belon. The most noteworthy of those engaged in these inquiries in tropical countries were W. Piso and G. Marcgrave, who accompanied as physicians the Dutch governor, Count Maurice of Nassau, to Brazil (1630-1644).

Of the men who left records of their anatomical researches, we may mention Borelli (1608-1679), who wrote a workDe motu animalium(Rome, 1680, 4to), in which he explained the mechanism of swimming and the function of the air-bladder; M. Malpighi (1628-1694), who examined the optic nerve of the sword-fish; the celebrated J. Swammerdam (1637-1680), who described the intestines of numerous fishes; and J. Duverney (1648-1730), who investigated in detail the organs of respiration.

A new era in the history of ichthyology commences with Ray, Willughby and Artedi, who were the first to recognize the true principles by which the natural affinities of animals should be determined. Their labours stand in so intimate a connexion with each other that they represent but one great step in the progress of this science.

J. Ray (1628-1705) was the friend and guide of F. Willughby (1635-1672). They found that a thorough reform in the method of treating the vegetable and animal kingdoms had become necessary; that the only way of bringingRay and Willughby.order into the existing chaos was by arranging the various forms according to their structure. They therefore substituted facts for speculation, and one of the first results of this change, perhaps the most important, was that, having recognized “species” as such, they defined the term and fixed it as the starting-point of all sound zoological knowledge.

Although they had divided their work so that Ray attended to the plants principally, and Willughby to the animals, theHistoria piscium(Oxf., 1686), which bears Willughby’s name on the title-page and was edited by Ray, is their joint production. A great part of the observations contained in it were collected during the journeys they made together in Great Britain and in the various countries of Europe.

By the definition of fishes as animals with blood, breathing by gills, provided with a single ventricle of the heart, and either covered with scales or naked, the Cetaceans are excluded. The fishes proper are arranged primarily according to the cartilaginous or the osseous nature of the skeleton, and then subdivided according to the general form of the body, the presence or the absence of ventral fins, the soft or the spinous structure of the dorsal rays, the number of dorsal fins, &c. No fewer than four hundred and twenty species are thus arranged and described, of which about one hundred and eighty were known to theauthors from personal examination—a comparatively small proportion, but descriptions and figures still formed in great measure the substitute for our modern collections and museums. With the increasing accumulation of forms, the want of a fixed nomenclature had become more and more felt.

Peter Artedi (1705-1734) would have been a great ichthyologist if Ray or Willughby had not preceded him. But he was fullyArtedi.conscious of the fact that both had prepared the way for him, and therefore he did not fail to reap every possible advantage from their labours. His work, edited by Linnaeus, is divided as follows:—

(1) In theBibliotheca ichthyologicaArtedi gives a very complete list of all preceding authors who had written on fishes, with a critical analysis of their works. (2) ThePhilosophia ichthyologicais devoted to a description of the external and internal parts of fishes; Artedi fixes a precise terminology for all the various modifications of the organs, distinguishing 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) TheGenera pisciumcontains well-defined diagnoses of forty-five genera, for which he has fixed an unchangeable nomenclature. (4) In theSpecies pisciumdescriptions of seventy-two species, examined by himself, are given—descriptions which even now are models of exactitude and method. (5) Finally, in theSynonymia pisciumreferences to all previous authors are arranged for every species, very much in the manner which is adopted in the systematic works of the present day.

Artedi has been justly called the father of ichthyology. So admirable was his treatment of the subject, that even LinnaeusLinnaeus.could only modify and add to it. Indeed, so far as ichthyology is concerned, Linnaeus has scarcely done anything beyond applying binominal terms to the species properly described and classified by Artedi. His classification of the genera appears in the 12th edition of the Systema thus:—

A.Amphibia nantia.—Spiraculis compositis.—Petromyzon, Raía, Squalus, Chimaera.Spiraculis solitariis.—Lophius, Acipenser, Cyclopterus, Balistes, Ostracion, Tetrodon, Diodon, Centriscus, Syngnathus, Pegasus.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.

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 DeutschlandsBloch.(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 titleM. 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 termedHendecapterygii,Decapterygii, &c. An artificial method like this led to the most unnatural combinations and distinctions.

Bloch’sNaturgeschichteremained 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.

Lacepède had to contend with great difficulties in the preparations of hisHistoire des poissons(Paris, 1798-1803, 5 vols.), which was written during the most disturbed period of the French Revolution. A great part of it wasLacepède.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 inaccessible to him for a long time. His work, therefore, abounds in the kind of errors into which a compiler is liable to fall. Thus the influence of Lacepède on the progress of ichthyology was vastly less than that of his fellow-labourer; and the labour laid on his successors in correcting numerous errors probably outweighed the assistance which they derived from his work.

The work of the principal students of ichthyology in the period between Ray and Lacepède was chiefly systematizing and describing; but the internal organization of fishes also received attention from more than one great anatomist. Albrecht von Haller, Peter Camper and John Hunter examined the nervous system and the organs of sense; and Alexander Monro,secundus, published a classical work,The Structure and Physiology of Fishes Explained and Compared with those of Man and other Animals(Edin., 1785). The electric organs of fishes (TorpedoandGymnotus) were examined by Réaumur, J. N. S. Allamand, E. Bancroft, John 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 ofSalmonidaewas known and practised by J. G. Gleditsch (1764).

Bloch and Lacepède’s works were almost immediately succeeded by the labours of Cuvier, but his early publications were tentative, preliminary and fragmentary, so that some little time elapsed before the spirit infused into ichthyology by this great anatomist could exercise its influence on all the workers in this field.

TheDescriptions and Figures of Two Hundred Fishes collected at Vizagapatam on the Coast of Coromandel(Lond., 1803, 2 vols.) by Patrick Russel, andAn Account of the Fishes found in the River Ganges and its Branches(Edin., 1822, 2 vols.) by F. Hamilton (formerly Buchanan), were works distinguished by greater accuracy of the drawings (especially the latter) than was ever attained before. ANatural History of British Fisheswas published by E. Donovan (Lond., 1802-1808); and the Mediterranean fauna formed the study of the lifetime of A. Risso,Ichthyologie de Nice(Paris, 1810); andHistoire naturelle de l’Europe méridionale(Paris, 1827). A slight beginning in the description of the fishes of the United States was made by Samuel Latham Mitchell (1764-1831), who published, besides various papers, aMemoir on the Ichthyology of New York, in 1815.

G. Cuvier (1769-1832) devoted himself to the study of fishes with particular predilection. The investigation of their anatomy, and especially their skeleton, was continued until he had succeeded in completing so perfect a frameworkCuvier.of the system of the whole class that his immediate successors required only to fill up those details for which their master had had no leisure. He ascertained the natural affinities of the infinite variety of forms, and accurately defined the divisions, orders, families and genera of the class, as they appear in the various editions of theRègne Animal. His industry equalled his genius; he formed connections with almost every accessible part of the globe; and for many years the museum of the Jardin des Plantes was the centre where all ichthyological treasures were deposited. Thus Cuvier brought together a collection which, as it contains all the materials on which his labours were based, must still be considered as the most important. Soon after the year 1820, Cuvier, assistedValenciennes.by one of his pupils, A. Valenciennes, commenced his great work on fishes,Historie naturelle des Poissons, of which the first volume appeared in 1828. After Cuvier’s death in 1832 the work was left entirely in the hands of Valenciennes, whose energy and interest gradually slackened, rising to their former pitch 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.

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.Sparoïdes.Branchies labyrinthiques.Polynèmes.Chétodonoïdes.Lophioïdes.Mulles.Scombéroïdes.Gobioïdes.Joues cuirassées.Muges.Labroïdes.Sciénoïdes.b.Malacoptérygiens.Abdominaux.Subbrachiens.Apodes.——————CyprinoïdesGadoïdes.Murénoïdes.Siluroïdes.Pleuronectes.Salmonoïdes.Discoboles.Clupéoïdes.Lucioïdes.2.A Mâchoire Supérieure Fixée.Selérodermes.Gymnodontes.II. A Branchies en Forme de Houppes.Lophobranches.B.CARTILAGINEUX OU CHONDROPTÉRYGIENS.Sturioniens.Plagiostomes.Cyclostomes.

A.POISSONS OSSEUX.I. A Branchies en Peignes ou en Lames.1.A Mâchoire Supérieure Libre.

2.A Mâchoire Supérieure Fixée.

II. A Branchies en Forme de Houppes.Lophobranches.

B.CARTILAGINEUX OU CHONDROPTÉRYGIENS.

We have only to compare this system with that of Linnaeus if we wish to measure the gigantic stride made by ichthyology 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. The important category of “family” appears now in Cuvier’s system fully established as 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 palaeontology; he was the first to observe the close resemblance of the scales of the fossilPalaeoniscusto those of the livingPolypterusandLepidosteus, the prolongation and identity of structure of the upper caudal lobe inPalaeoniscusand the sturgeons, the presence of peculiar “fulcra” on the anterior margin of the dorsal fin inPalaeoniscusandLepidosteus, and inferred from these facts that the fossil genus was allied either to the sturgeons or toLepidosteus. But it did not occur to him that there was a close relationship between those recent fishes.Lepidosteusand, with it, the fossil genus remained in his system a member of the order ofMalacopterygii abdominales.

It was left to L. Agassiz (1807-1873) to point out the importance of the structure of the scales as a characteristic, and to open aAgassiz.path towards the knowledge of a whole new subclass of fishes, theGanoidei. Impressed with the fact that the peculiar scales ofPolypterusandLepidosteusare 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:—

Back to Index Next