> When a modern ichthyologist examined the book a quarter millennium after its publication, he determined that only about one in ten of the species depicted was

> When a modern ichthyologist examined the book a quarter millennium after its publication, he determined that only about one in ten of the species depicted was drawn from the imagination; the rest were identifiable down to the genus, many even to the species. This is fascinating. I skimmed the 500 MB PDF download of the 1754 book [1] and I can confirm that anyone familiar with the reef fish/animals of the Indo-Pacific (these are from the Spice Islands [2] in the Indonesian archipelago) can easily pick out individual species. I was surprised by the number of times the same species, according to my non-ichthyologist eyes, was repeated (e.g. Picasso Triggerfish and Rainbow Mantis Shrimp). The artist was very good at capturing the shape and patterns of the animals (maybe not so good at grouping them by species). The colors seem to be more interpretive than realistic, probably because the fish were from local markets. Rather than being "psychedelic", some of the most spectacular colorings, such as the Clown Triggerfish [3], are depicted with bland colors. [1] https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/200575#page/7/mode/1up https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/200575#page/7/mode/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluku_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluku_Islands [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clown_triggerfish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clown_triggerfish