Apresentação da segunda parte do dossiê História e Literatura

Pinto, Júlio Pimentel; Iegelski, Francine; Chiarelli, Stefania

doi:10.11606/issn.2447-9020.intelligere.2017.125441

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 18 th and 19 th centuries, were published a few somewhat comprehensive articles on the species described by Marggraf and Pies and illustrated in paintings of the Mauritian period (or based on them), which dealt with animals (Schneider, 1786) and plants (Martius, 1853; translated to English by Wallich, 1853a, b, c), while some accounts were devoted to specific groups, such as mammals (Lichtenstein, 1818), birds (Lichtenstein, 1819), amphibians and reptiles (Lichtenstein, 1822b), and fishes (Bloch, 1787;Lichtenstein, 1822a;1829). More recently, plants (Sampaio, 1942;Moulin et al, 1986;Pickel, 2008;Alcàntara-Rodríguez et al, 2021), arachnids, myriapods, and insects (Lane, 1942), crustaceans (Sawaya, 1942a;Castro, 1962;Holthuis, 1991;Tavares, 1993), fishes (Carvalho & Sawaya, 1942;Paiva & Campos, 1995), amphibians (Sawaya, 1942b), reptiles (Sawaya, 1942b), birds (Hellmayr, 1929;Schneider, 1938;Pinto, 1942;Teixeira, 2000Teixeira, , 2009, and mammals (Sawaya, 1942b;Hershkovitz, 1987) have been reviewed. Most of them, however, deal with de Laet (1648)'s HNB and Pisonis (1658)'s INML instead of specifically with the paintings that presumably served as the basis for the woodcuts that illustrate those books, much because such paintings were lost or ignored for a long time, coming to light only recently (see below).…”

Section: Historia Naturalis Brasiliae (1648) -The First Compendium On...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The earliest iconographic record of Gobioides broussonnetii La Cepède, 1800 (Gobiiformes: Gobiidae): the species identity of the “Caramuru” paintings of Dutch Brazil (1624-1654)

Trevisan,

Bockmann

2023

Arq. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the Mauritian period of Dutch Brazil (1637‑1644), a great deal of information about the biota of northeastern Brazil was obtained, consisting of both written records and paintings. Among them is an eel-like fish, depicted in two paintings labeled “Caramurû” and “Caramuru”, whose taxonomic identity is controversial. One of them, attributed to Albert Eckhout, is part of the Theatrum Rerum Naturalium Brasiliae collection, stored at the Jagiellonian University Library, in Poland. This painting was possibly a model for the second “Caramuru”, of unknown authorship, which is deposited at the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. These paintings are doubtfully identified as the snake eel Echiophis intertinctus (Ophichthidae, Anguilliformes), a proposal likely induced by the vulgar name “caramuru”, which is applied to muraenids and ophichthids in Brazil. After careful examination of these two paintings regarding the anatomical details depicted, we concluded that the fish corresponds, with great certainty, to Gobioides broussonnetii (Gobiidae, Gobiiformes), popularly known as “aimoré” and “tajasica”. Furthermore, we suggest the possibility that the written counterpart of these paintings is the description associated with the woodcut of the fish labeled as “Tajasica” in the Historia Naturalis Brasiliae (Marggraf in de Laet, 1648). The confusion probably stems from mismatches between Georg Marggraf’s descriptions and the images of organisms produced at the time, perhaps before the return of Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen’s entourage to Europe. In an attempt to support our conclusions about the identity of that fish, as well as for historical purposes, we also discuss the vernacular names applied to G. broussonnetii and the authorship of the notes made on those paintings.

show abstract