Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/451

HISTORY.] REPTILES 433 sected himself. The other Lizards mentioned by him are the common Lizards (a-avpa), the common Seps or tyns), and the Gecko (do-KaAa/Jwrr;? or Of Snakes (of which he generally speaks as o<ts) he knew the Vipers (x ts or fX 1 ^ 01 )' ^he common Snake (vSpos), and the Blindworm (Tv<j>ivr)<; o</>ts), which he regards as a Snake; he further mentions the Egyptian Cobra and Dragons (SpaKwv) North- African Serpents of fabulous size. Of Chelonians he describes in a perfectly recognizable manner Land Tortoises (xeAwviy), Freshwater Turtles , and Marine Turtles (xeXwvrj rj 6aXa.rrl.a). Passing over eighteen centuries we find the knowledge of Reptiles to have remained as stationary as other branches of natural history, perhaps even more so. The Reptile fauna of Europe was not extensive enough to attract the energy of a Belon or Rondelet ; popular prejudice and the difficulty of preserving these animals deterred from their study ; nor was the mind of man sufficiently educated not to give implicit credence to the fabulous tales with which every account of Reptiles in the 15th and 16th centuries was replete. The art of healing, however, was developing into a science based upon rational principles, and consequently not only those Reptiles which formed part of the materia medica but also the venomous Snakes became objects of study to the physician. Snakes, and especially the Viper, were treated of in distinct divisions of general works, or in separate monographs. It is true that these treatises were written less with the view of elucidating the natural history of the animals than with that of describing their poisonous nature and indicating the manner in which they should be used as medicaments, the majority of the writers being ignorant of the structure of the venom-apparatus, and of the distinction between non-venomous and venomous Snakes. o>n. Nothing can show more clearly the small advance made by herpetology in this long post-Aristotelian period than a glance at the celebrated work, De Differentiis Animalium Libii decem (Paris, 1552), by EDWARD WOTTON (1492- 1555). Wotton treats of the Reptiles which he designates as Quadrupedes oviparx et Serpentes in the sixth book of his work. They form the second division of the Quadrupedes gux sanguinem habent, and are subdivided in the following " genera " : Crocodihis etsdncus (cap. cv.) ; Testudinum genera (cvi.) ; Ran- arum genera (cvii. ) ; Lacertas (cviii. ) ; Solamandra et seps quad- rupcs (cix.) ; Stellio (ex.); Chamseleo (cxi.) ; Serpentes (cxii. ), a general account, the following being different kinds of Serpents : Hydrus et alii quidam serpentes aquatiles (cxiii.) ; Serpentes terrestres et primo aspidum genera (cxiv. ) ; Vipera, dipsas, cer- astes, et kammodytes (cxv. ) ; Hwmorrhus, sepedon, seps, cenchris, et cenchrites (cxvi.) ; Easiliscus et alii quidam serpentes quorum venenum remedio caret (cxvii.) ; Draco, amphisb&na, et alii quidam serpentes quorum morsus minus affert periculi (cxviii. ). As regards the treatment of the subject, Wotton's work might with propriety be termed " Aristoteles redivivus." The plan is the same, and the observations of the Greek naturalist are faithfully, sometimes literally, reproduced. It is surprising that even the Reptiles of his native country were most imperfectly known to the author. A new impetus for the cultivation of the study of natural history was given through the observations and writings of travellers in India, Africa, and America. With the enlargement of geographical knowledge that of Reptiles was also advanced, as is sufficiently apparent from the large encyclopaedic works of GESNER, ALDROVANDI, and JOHNSTON. The last-named author especially, who published the various portions of his natural history in the middle of the 17th century, was able to embody in his compila- tions notices of numerous Reptiles observed by Francisco Hernandez in Mexico and by Marcgrave and Piso in Brazil. As the author had no definite idea of the Ray-Linnsean term " species," it is not possible to give the exact number Linnaeus. of Reptiles mentioned in his work. But it may be estimated at about fifty, not including some marine fishes and fabulous creatures. He figures (or rather reproduces the figures of) about forty, some species being represented by several figures. 2. Linnsean Period : Formation of a Class Amphibia. Precur- Within the century which succeeded these compilatory sors works (1650-1750) fall the 'labours which prepared the way for and exerted the greatest influence on Ray and Linna3us. Although original researches in the field of herpetology were limited in extent and in number, the authors had freed themselves from the purely literary or scholastic tendency. Men were no longer satisfied with reproducing and commenting on the writings of their pre- decessors ; the pen was superseded by the eye, the micro- scope, and the knife, and statements were tested by experiment. This spirit of the age manifested itself, so far as the Reptiles are concerned, in CHARA'S and REDI'S admirable observations on the Viper, in MAJOR'S and VAL- LISNIERI'S detailed accounts of the anatomy of the Chamse- leon, in the researches of JACOB^ETJS into the metamor- phoses of the Batrachians and the structure of Lizards, in DUFAY'S history of the development of the Salamander (for Batrachians are invariably associated with Reptiles proper); in TYSON'S description of the anatomy of the Rattlesnake, &c. The natural history collections formed by institutions and wealthy individuals now contained not merely skins of Crocodiles or Serpents stuffed and transformed into a shape to correspond with the fabulous descriptions of the ancient dragons ; but, with the discovery of alcohol as a means of preserving animals, Reptiles entire or dissected were exhibited for study ; and no opportunity was lost of obtaining them from travellers or residents in foreign countries. Fossils also were now acknowledged to be re- mains of animals which had lived before the flood, and some of them were recognized as those of Reptiles. The contributions to a positive knowledge of the animal kingdom became so numerous as to render the need of a methodical arrangement of the abundance of new facts more and more pressing. Of the two principal systematic attempts made in this period the first ranks as one of the most remarkable steps of the progress of natural history, whilst the second can only be designated as a signal failure, which ought to have been a warning to all those who in after years classified animals in what is called an "artificial sys- tem." As the latter attempt, originating with KLEIN (1685 1759), did not exercise any further influence on herpeto- logy, it will be sufficient to have merely mentioned it. JOHN RAY (1628-1705) had recognized the necessity of in- Ray. troducing exact definitions for the several categories into which the animals had to be divided, and he maintained that these categories ought to be characterized by the structure of animals, and that all zoological knowledge had to start from the " species " as its basis. His defini- tion of Reptiles as " animalia sanguinea pulmohe respirantia cor unico tantum ventriculo instructum habentia ovipara " fixed the class in a manner which was adopted by the naturalists of the succeeding hundred and fifty years. Nevertheless, Ray was not a herpetologist ; he never made these animals his special study, as is evident from the way in which he subdivides the class, as well as from his imperfect treatment of the species. His knowledge of Reptiles is chiefly derived from the researches of others, from whose accounts, however, everything not based upon reliable demonstration is critically excluded. He begins with a chapter treating of Frogs (Rana, with two species), Toads (Bufo, with one species), and Tortoises 1 1 In associating Tortoises with Toads Ray could not disengage him- self from the general popular view as to the nature of these animals, which found expression in the German Schildkrote (" Shield-toad "). XX. - 55