Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
See also:ICHTHYOLOGY (from Gr. LxObs, See also:fish, and Xoyos, See also:doctrine or See also:treatise) , the See also:branch of See also:zoology which treats of the See also:internal and See also:external structure of fishes, their mode of See also:life, and their See also:distribution in space and See also: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 See also:water, and by means of gills or branchiae breathe See also:air dissolved in water; the See also:heart consists of a single ventricle and single See also:atrium; the limbs, if See also: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 . See also:HISTORY AND LITERATURE DOWN TO 1880 The commencement of the history of See also:ichthyology coincides with that of zoology generally . See also:Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) had a perfect knowledge of the See also:general structure of fishes, which he clearly discriminates both from the aquatic animals with lungs and mammae, i.e . Cetaceans, and from the various See also:groups of aquatic invertebrates . According to him: " the See also:special characteristics of the true fishes consist in the branchiae and fins, the See also:majority having four fins, but those of an elongate See also:form, as the eels, having two only . Some, as the See also:Muraena, lack the fins altogether . The rays swim with their whole See also:body, which is spread out . The branchiae are sometimes furnished with an operculum, sometimes they are without one, as in the cartilaginous fishes . . . . No See also:fish has hairs or feathers; most are covered with scales, but some have only a rough or a smooth skin . The See also: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 See also:place of nostrils is a See also:blind cavity; nevertheless they have the senses of tasting, smelling and See also:hearing . All have See also:blood . All scaly fishes are oviparous, but the cartilaginous fishes (with the exception of the See also:sea-See also:devil, which Aristotle places along with them) are viviparous . All have a heart, See also:liver and See also:gall-See also:bladder; but kidneys and urinary bladder are absent . They vary much in the structure of their intestines: for, whilst the See also:mullet has ' a fleshy See also:stomach like a See also:bird, others have no stomachic See also:dilatation . Pyloric caeca are See also: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 See also:function of testicles; they open towards the vent, and are much enlarged in the spawning See also:season . The scales become harder with See also:age . Not being provided with lungs, fishes have no See also:voice, but several can emit grunting sounds . They See also:sleep like other animals . In most cases the See also:females exceed the See also:males in See also:size; and in the rays and sharks the male is distinguished by an appendage on each See also:side of the vent." Aristotle's See also:information on the habits of fishes, their migrations, See also:node and time of See also:propagation, and economic uses is, so far as it has been tested, surprisingly correct . Unfortunately, we too often lack the means of recognizing the See also: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 See also:vernacular names are subject to See also:change, or maybe 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 See also:hundred and fifteen, all of which are inhabitants of the See also:Aegean Sea . That one See also:man should have laid so sure a basis for future progress in zoology is less surprising than that for about eighteen centuries a See also:science which seemed to offer particular attractions to men gifted with See also:power of observation was no further advanced . Yet such is the See also: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 See also:Ausonius, who wrote a small poem, in which he describes from his own observations the fishes of the Moselle) authors abstained from See also:original See also:research; and it was not until about the See also:middle of the 16th See also:century that ichthyology made a new step in advance by the See also:appearance of See also:Belon, Rondelet and Salviani, who almost simultaneously published their See also:great See also:works, by which the See also:idea of species was established . P . Belon travelled in the countries bordering on the eastern See also:part of the Mediterranean in the years 1547–1550; he collected Belon . See also:rich stores of See also:positive knowledge, which he embodied in several works . The one most important for the progress of ichthyology is that entitled De aquatilibus libri duo (See also:Paris, 1JJ3) . Belon knew about one hundred and ten fishes, of which he gives See also:rude but generally recognizable figures . Although Belon rarely gives See also:definitions of the terms used by him, it is not generally very difficult to ascertain the limits which he intended to assign to each See also:division of aquatic animals . He very properly divides them into such as are provided with blood and those without it—two divisions corresponding in See also:modern See also: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 See also:skeleton, mode of propagation, number of limbs, form of the body and See also:physical See also:character of the See also:habitat . The See also:work of the See also:Roman ichthyologist H . Salviani (1514–1572), bears See also:evidence of the high social position which the author Sealant. held as physician to three popes . Its See also:title is Aquatilium animalium historia (See also:Rome, 1554–1557, fol.) . It treats exclusively of the fishes of See also:Italy . Ninety-two species are figured on seventy-six plates, which, as regards See also:artistic See also:execution, are masterpieces of that See also:period, although those specific characteristics which nowadays constitute the value of a zoological See also:drawing were overlooked by the author or artist . No See also:attempt is made at a natural See also: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 See also:economy and uses of the several species, and were evidently composed with the view of See also:collecting in a readable form all that might prove of See also:interest to the class of society in which the author moved . Salviani's work is of a high See also:order . It could not fail to render ichthyology popular in the See also:country to the See also: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 he compared with Rondelet or Belon . G . Rondelet (1507–1557) had the great See also:advantage over Belon of having received a medical See also:education at Paris, and especially Rondelet. of having gone through a See also:complete.course of instruction in See also:anatomy as a See also:pupil cf Guentherus of See also:Andernach . This is conspicuous throughout his works—Libri de piscibus ntarinis (See also:Lyons, 1554); and Universac aqualilium historiae pars allera (Lyons, 1555) . Nevertheless they cannot be regarded as more than considerably enlarged See also:editions of Belon's work . For, although he worked independently of the latter, the See also:system adopted by him is characterized by the same See also:absence of the true principles of classification . His work is almost entirely limited to See also:European and chiefly to Mediterranean forms, and comprises no fewer than one hundred and ninety-seven marine and See also:forty-seven fresh-water fishes . His descriptions are more complete and his figures much more accurate than those of Belon; and the specific See also:account is preceded by See also: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 See also:principal See also: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 See also:standard works on ichthyology; but the science did not remain stationary during that period . The See also:attention of naturalists was now directed to the fauna of See also:foreign countries, especially of the See also:Spanish and Dutch possessions in the New See also:World; and in See also:Europe the See also:establishment of anatomical See also:schools and See also:academies led to careful investigation of the internal anatomy of the most remarkable European forms . Limited as these efforts were as to their See also: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 . See also:Piso and G . Marcgrave, who accompanied as physicians the Dutch See also:governor, See also:Count See also:Maurice of See also:Nassau, to See also:Brazil (1630–1644) . Of the men who See also:left records of their anatomical researches, we may mention See also:Borelli (1608–1679), who wrote a work De motu animalium (Rome, 168o, 4t0), in which he explained the mechanism of See also:swimming and the function of the air-bladder; M . See also:Malpighi (1628–1694), who examined the optic See also:nerve of the See also:sword-fish; the celebrated J . See also:Swammerdam (1637–168o), who described the intestines of numerous fishes; and J . Duverney (1648–1730), who investigated in detail the See also:organs of respiration . A new era in the history of ichthyology commences with See also:Ray, See also:Willughby and See also:Artedi, who were the first to recognize the true principles by which the natural See also: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 See also:guide of F . Willughby (1635–1672) . They found that a thorough reform in the method of treating the See also:vegetable and See also:animal kingdoms had become necessary; that the only way of bringing wi and order into the existing See also:chaos was by arranging the lugbby. various forms according to their structure . They therefore substituted facts for See also:speculation, and one of the first results of this change, perhaps the most important, was that, having recognized "species" as such, they defined the See also:term and fixed it as the starting-point of all See also:sound zoological knowledge . Although they had divided their work so that Ray attended to the See also:plants principally, and Willughby to the animals, the Historia piscium (Oxf., 1686), which bears Willughby's name on the title-See also:page and was edited by Ray, is their See also:joint See also:production . A great part of the observations contained in it were collected during the journeys they made together in Great See also:Britain and in the various countries of Europe . By the See also: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 vinous structure of the dorsal rays, the number of dorsal fins, &c . No fewer than four hundred and twenty species arc thus arranged and described, of which about one hundred and eighty were known to the authors from See also: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 See also:accumulation of forms, the want of a fixed nomenclature had become more and more See also:felt . See also:Peter Artedi ('705-1734) would have been a great ichthyologist if Ray or Willughby had not preceded him . But he was fully Arteat 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 See also:Linnaeus, is divided as follows: (x) In the Bibliotheca ichthyologica Artedi gives a very complete See also:list of all preceding authors. who had writtenon fishes, with a See also:critical See also:analysis of their works . (2) The Philosophia ichthyologica is 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) The Genera pescsum contains well-defined diagnoses of forty-five genera, for which he has fixed an unchangeable nomenclature . (4) In the Species pisoium descriptions of seventy-two species, examined by himself, are_ given—descriptions which even now are See also:models of exactitude and method . (5) Finally, in the Synonymia psscium references to all previous authors are arranged for every species, very much in the manner which is adopted'in the systematic works of the present See also:day . Artedi has been justly called the See also:father of ichthyology . So admirable was his treatment of 'the subject, that even Linnaeus Linnaeus. 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, See also:Amphibia nantia.—Spiraculis compositis.-Petromyzon, Raia, Squalus, See also:Chimaera . Spiraculis solitaries: Lophius, Acipenser, Cyclopterus, Baiistes, Ostracion, Tetrodon, Diodon, Centriscus, Syngnathus . See also:Pegasus . B . See also:Pisces a¢odes.-Muraena, Gymnotus, Trichiurus, Anarrhichas, Ammodytes, Ophidium, Stromateus, Xiphias .
C
.
Pisces jugulares.—Callionymus, Uranoscopus, Trachinus, Gadus, Blennius
.
D
.
Pisces taoracici.-Cepola, Echeneis, Coryphaena, See also:Gobi's, Cottus, Scorpaena,See also:Zeus, Pleuronectes, Chaetodon, Spares, Labials, Sciaena, Perca, Gasterosteus, Scomber, Mullus, Trigla
.
E
..
Pisces abdominales.—Cobitis, Amia, See also:Silures, Teuthis, Lori See also:caria, Salmo, Fistularia, Esox, Elops, See also:Argentina, Atherina, Mugil, Mormyrus, Exocoetus, Polynemus, Clupea, Cyprinus
.
Two, contemporaries of Linnaeus, L
.
T
.
Gronow and J
.
T
.
See also:Klein, attempted a systematic arrangement of fishes
.
The works of Artedi and Linnaeus led See also:town activity of research,
especially in Scandinavia, See also: 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 See also:discovery to foreign and distant lands . Of these latter the following may be especially mentioned: O . See also:Fabricius worked out the fauna of See also:Greenland; Peter Kalm collected in See also:North See also:America, . F . See also:Hasselquist in See also:Egypt and See also:Palestine, M . T . Brunnich in the Mediterranean, Osbeck in See also:Java and See also:China, K . P . See also:Thunberg in See also:Japan; See also:Forskal examined and described the fishes of the Red Sea; G . W . Steller, P . S .
See also:Pallas, S
.
G
.
See also:Gmelin, and A
.
J
.
Guldenstadt traversed nearly the whole of the See also:Russian See also:empire in Europe and See also:Asia
.
Others attached themselves as naturalists to celebrated navigators, such as the two Forsters (father and son) and Solander, who accompanied See also:Cook; P
.
Commerson, who travelled with See also:Bougainville; and See also:Pierre Sonnerat
.
Of those who studied the fishes of their native countries, the most celebrated were See also:Pennant (Great Britain), O
.
F
.
See also: The See also:mass of materials brought together was so great that, not See also:long after the See also:death of Linnaeus, the See also:necessity made itself felt for collecting them in a compendious form . Several compilers undertook this task; they embodied the See also:recent discoveries in new editions of the classical works of Artedi and Linnaeus, but,they only succeeded in burying those See also:noble monuments under a chaotic mass of rubbish . For ichthyology it was fortunate that two men at least, See also:Bloch and Lacepede, made it a subject of prolonged original research . See also:Mark Eliezer Bloch (1723-1799), a physician of See also:Berlin, had reached the age of fifty-six when he began to write on ichthyological subjects . His work consists of two divisions:- Btoch (,1) Oconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische See also:Deutsch- lends . (Berl., 1782-1784); (2) Naturgeschichte der ausltindischen 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 See also:trust to more or less incorrect drawings and descriptions by travellers; frequently, also, he was deceivedas to the origin of specimens which he See also: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 . See also:Schneider, under the title M . E . Blochii Systema ichthyologiae . iconibus ex. illustratum (Berl., i8ox) . 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 Lacepede, See also:born at See also:Agen,in France, in 1756, who became See also:professor at the museum of natural history in Paris, where he died in 1825 .
Lacepede had to contend with great difficulties in the preparations of his Histoire See also:des poissons (Paris, 1798-1803, 5 vols.), which was written during the most disturbed period Lacepede. of the See also:French Revolution
.
A great part of it was
composed whilst the author was separated from collections and books, and had to rely on his notes and See also: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 See also:kind of errors into which a compiler is liable to fall
.
Thus the See also:influence of Lacepede on the progress of ichthyology was vastly less than that of his See also: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 Lacepede was chiefly systematizing and describing; but the internal organization of fishes also received attention from more than one great anatomist
.
Albrecht von See also:Haller, Peter See also:Camper and See also:
See also:Bancroft, John See also:Walsh, and still more exactly by J
.
Hunter
.
The See also:mystery of the propagation of the See also:eel called forth a large number of essays, and even the artificial propagation of Sal monidae was known and practised by J
.
G
.
Gleditsch(1.764)
.
Bloch and Lacepede's works were almost immediately succeeded by the labours of See also:Cuvier, but his See also: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 See also: G . Cuvier (1769-1832) devoted himself to the study of fishes with particular predilection . The investigation of their anatomy, Gtvter. and especially of their skeleton, was continued until he had succeeded in completing so perfect a See also:frame-work of the system of the whole class that his immediate successors required only to fill up those details for which their See also:master had had no leisure . He ascertained the natural affinities of the See also:infinite variety of farms, and accurately defined the divisions, orders, families and genera of the class, as they appear in the various editions of the Regne Animal . His See also:industry equalled his See also: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 See also:year r82o, Cuvier, assisted vatea_ by one of his pupils, A . See also:Valenciennes, commenced clennes. his great work on fishes, Historic naturelle des Poissons, of which the first See also:volume appeared in 1828 . After Cuvier's death in 1832 the work was left entirely in the hands of Valenciennes, whose See also:energy and interest gradually slackened, rising to their former See also:pitch in some parts only, as, for instance, in the See also:treatise, on the See also: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 . I . A Mdchoire Superieure Libre . a . Acanthopteryglens . Percoides . Sparoides . Branchies labyrinthiques . Polynemes . Chetodonoides . Lophioides . Mulles . Scomberoides . Gobioides . Joues cuirassees Muges . Labroides . Scienoides . b . Malacopterygiens . Abdominaux . Subbrachiens . A podes . Cyprinoides . Gadoides . Murenoides . Siluroides . Pleuronectes . Salmonoides . Discoboles . Clupeoides . Lucioides . 2 . A Mdchoire, Superieure Fixee . Selerodermes . Gymnodontes . II . A BRANCHIES EN FORME DE HOUPPES . Lophobranches . B . CARTILAGINEUX OU CHONDROPTERYGIENS . Sturioniens . Plagiostomes . Cyclostomes . 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 See also:category of " See also: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 See also: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 fossil Palaeoniscus to thoseof the living Polypterus and Lepidosteus, the prolongation and identity of structure of the upper caudal See also:lobe in Palaeoniscus and the sturgeons, the presence of See also:peculiar " fulcra " on the anterior margin of the dorsal fin in Palaeoniscus and Lepidosteus, and inferred from these facts that the fossil genus was allied either to the sturgeons or to Lepidosteus . But it did not occur to him that there was a close relationship between those recent fishes . Lepidosteus and, with it, the fossil genus remained in. his system a member of the order of.Malacopterygii abdominales . It was left to L . See also:Agassiz (1807-1873) to point out the importance of the structure of the scales as a characteristic, and to open a path towards the knowledge of a whole new subclass Agassiz. of fishes, the Ganoidei . Impressed with the fact that the peculiar scales of Polypterus and Lepidosteus are See also:common to all fossil osseous fishes down to the See also:Chalk, he takes the structure of the scales generally as the See also:base for an ichthyological system, and distinguishes four orders: 1 . Plaeoids.—Without scales proper, but with scales of See also:enamel, sometimes large, sometimes small, and reduced to See also:mere points (Rays, Sharks and Cyclostomi,,with the fossil Hybodontes) . 2 . Ganoids . With angular bony scales, covered with a thick stratum of enamel: to this order belong the fossil Lepidoides, Sauroides, Pycnodontes and Coelacanthi; the recent Polypterus, Lepidosteus, Sclerodermi, Gymnodontes, Lophobranches and Siluraides; also the Sturgeons . 3 . Ctenoids.—With rough scales, which have their See also:free margins denticulated: Chaetodontidae, Pleuronectidae, Percidae, Poly-acanthi, Sciaenidae, Sparidae, Scorpaenidae, Aulostomi . 4 . Cycloids . —With smooth scales, the See also:hind margin of which lacks denticulation: Labridae, Mugilidae, Scombridae, Gadoidei, Gobiidae, Muraenidae, Lucioidei, Salmonidae, Clupeidae, Cyprinidae . If Agassiz had had an opportunity of acquiring a more extensive and intimate knowledge of existing fishes before his energies were absorbed in the study of fossil remains, he would doubtless have recognized the artificial character of his classification . The distinctions between See also:cycloid and ctenoid scales, between placoid and ganoid fishes, are vague, and can hardly be maintained . So far as the living and See also:post-Cretacean forms are concerned, he abandoned the vantage-ground gained by Cuvier; and therefore his system could never supersede that of his predecessor, and finally shared the See also:fate of every classification based on the modifications of one See also:organ only . But Agassiz opened an immense new field of research by his study of the infinite variety of fossil forms . In his principal work, Recherches sur See also:les poissons fossiles, See also:Neuchatel, 1833-1843, 4to, See also:atlas in fol., he placed them before the world arranged in a methodical manner, with excellent descriptions and illustrations . His power of discernment and penetration in determining even the most fragmentary remains is astonishing; and, if his order of Ganoids is an assemblage of forms very different from what is now understood by that term, he was the first who recognized that such an order of fishes exists . The discoverer of the Ganoidei was succeeded by their explorer Johannes Muller (18or-i858) . In his classical memoir Ober den Bau and See also:die Grenzen der Ganoiden (Berl., 1846) he showed that the Ganoids differ from all the other osseous fishes, and agree with the Plagiostomes, in the structure of the heart . By this See also:primary character, all heterogeneous elements, as Siluroids, Osteoglossidae, &c., were eliminated from the order as understood. by Agassiz . On the other See also:hand, he did not recognize the See also:affinity of Lepidosiren to the Ganoids, but established for it a distinct subclass, Dipnoi, which he placed at the opposite end of the system . By his researches into the anatomy of the lampreys and See also:Amphioxus, their typical distinctness from other caftilaginous fishes was proved; they became the types of two other subclasses, Cyclostomi and Leptocardii . Muller proposed several other modifications of the Cuvierian system; and, although all cannot be maintained as the most natural arrangements, yet his researches have given us a much more complete knowledge of the o |