Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/153

Rh and Adolf (1806-1871), and his grandsons Johann Adolf and Oskar Philipp.

J. G. Repsold introduced essential improvements in the meridian circles by substituting microscopes (on Jesse Ramsden's plan) for the verniers to read the circles, and by making the various parts perfectly symmetrical. For a number of years the firm furnished meridian circles to the observatories at Hamburg, Königsberg, Pulkova, &c.; later on its activity declined, while Pistor and Martins of Berlin rose to eminence. But after the discontinuance of this firm that of Repsold again came to the front, not only in the construction of transit circles, but also of equatorial mountings and more especially of heliometers (see ).  REPTILES (Lat. Reptilia, creeping things, from reptilis; refere, to creep; Gr., whence the term “herpetology,” for the science dealing with them). In the days before Linnaeus, writers comprised the animals which popularly are known as tortoises and turtles, crocodiles, lizards and snakes, frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, under the name of oviparous quadrupeds or four-limbed animals which lay eggs. Linnaeus, desirous of giving expression to the extraordinary fact that many of these animals pass part of their life in the water and part on land, substituted the name of Amphibia for the ancient term. Subsequent French naturalists (Lyonnet and Brisson ) considered that the creeping mode of locomotion was a more general characteristic of the class than their amphibious habits, and consequently proposed the scarcely more appropriate name of Reptiles.

As naturalists gradually comprehended the wide gap existing between frogs, toads, &c., on the one hand, and the other oviparous quadrupeds on the other, they either adopted the name of Batrachia for the former and that of Amphibia for the latter, or they restricted the term Amphibia to Batrachians, calling the remainder of these creatures reptiles. Thus the term Amphibia, as used by various authors, may apply (1) to all the various animals mentioned, or (2) to Batrachians only (see ). The term Reptiles (Reptilia) is used (1) by some for all the animals mentioned above, and (2) by others, as in the present article, for the same assemblage of animals after the exclusion of Batrachians.

Equally varying are the limits of the term Saurians, which occurs so frequently in every scientific treatise on this subject. At first it comprised living crocodiles and lizards only, with which a number of fossil forms were gradually associated. As the characters and affinities of the latter became better known, some of them were withdrawn from the Saurians, and at present it is best to abandon the term altogether.

Certain kinds of reptiles are mentioned in the earliest written records or have found a place among the fragments of the oldest relics of human art. Such evidences, however, form no part of a succinct review of the literature of the subject such as it is proposed to give here. We distinguish in it six periods: (1) the Aristotelian; (2) the Linnaean (formation of a class Amphibia, in which reptiles and Batrachians are mixed); (3) the period of the elimination of Batrachians as one of the reptilian orders (Brongniart); (4) that of the separation of reptiles and Batrachians as distinct subclasses; (5) that of the recognition of a class Reptilia as part of the Sauropsida (Huxley); (6) that of the discovery of fossil skeletons sufficiently well preserved to reveal, in its general outlines, the past history of the class.

1. The Aristotelian Period.—Aristotle was the first to deal with the reptiles known to him as members of a distinct portion

of the animal kingdom, and to point out the characteristics by which they resemble each other and differ from other vertebrate and invertebrate animals. The plan of his

work, however, was rather that of a comparative treatise of the anatomical and physiological characters of animals than their systematic arrangement and definition, and his ideas about the various groups of reptiles are not distinctly expressed, but must be gleaned from the terms which he employs. Moreover, he paid less attention to the study of reptiles than to that of other classes. This is probably due to the limited number of kinds he could be acquainted with, to which only very few extra-European forms, like the crocodile, were added from other sources. But while we find in some respects a most remarkable accuracy of knowledge, there is sufficient evidence that he neglected everyday opportunities of information. Thus, he has not a single word about the metamorphoses of Batrachians, which he treats of in connexion with reptiles.

Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the scute or scale of a reptile, which he describes as, and that of a fish, which he designates as. He mentions reptiles (1) as oviparous quadrupeds with scutes, viz. Saurians and Chelonians; (2) as oviparous apodals, viz. Snakes; (3) as oviparous quadrupeds without scutes, viz. Batrachians. He considered the first and second of these three groups as much more nearly related to each other than to the third. Accurate statements and descriptions are sadly mixed with errors and stories of, to our eyes, the most absurd and fabulous kind. The most complete accounts are those of the crocodile (chiefly borrowed from Herodotus) and of the chameleon, which Aristotle evidently knew from personal observation, and had dissected himself. The other lizards mentioned by him are the common lizards, the common seps ( or ) and the gecko ( or ). Of snakes (of which he generally speaks as ) he knew the vipers ( or ), the common snake, and the blind worm, which he regards as a snake; he further mentions the Egyptian cobra and dragons —North-African serpents of fabulous size. Of Chelonians he describes in a perfectly recognizable manner land tortoises , freshwater turtles and marine turtles.

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 man sufficiently educated not to give implicit credence to the fabulous tales of reptiles in the 15th and 16th centuries. 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, though the majority of the writers were ignorant of the structure of the venom-apparatus, and of the distinction between non-venomous and venomous snakes.

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 Libri decem (Paris, 1552), by Edward Wotton (1492-1555). Wotton treats of the reptiles which he designates as Quadrupedes oviparae et Serpentes in the sixth book of his work. They form the second division of the Quadrupedes quae sanguinem habent, and are subdivided in the following “genera”:—

Crocodilus et scincus (cap. cv.); Testudinum genera (cvi.); Ranarum genera (cvii.); Lacertae (cviii.); Salamandra et seps quadrupes (cix.); Stellio (cx.); Chamaeleo (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, cerastes, et hammodytes (cxv.); Haemorrhus, sepedon, seps, cenchris, et cenchrites (cxvi.); Basiliscus et alii quidam serpentes quorum venenum remedio caret (cxvii.); Draco, amphisbaena, et alii quidam serpentes quorum morsus minus affert periculi (cxviii.).

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.