Talk:Historia animalium (Gessner book)

Untitled
Why is an obviously a modern photograph of real fossil ammonites labeled as an illustration from 1551? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I came to say the same thing. It's clearly a photograph.  I'll change the caption. 86.150.102.220 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Gesner fossil illustration 1551.jpg realy from 1551?
The caption of fossil illustration does suggest that the illustration dates from 1551, but the picture seems to be modern. The style does not match the 16th century, and printing techniques in that area could not reproduce a picture in this quality. The following website shows an illustration of ammonites from Gesner that seems more authentic:

212.72.44.38 (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)T Atkins212.72.44.38 (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to expand upon the different volumes, and delve into his analysis of animals and compare it to what is known today, and possibly address how his research style is very similar to those used today in the study of fauna. Theboywiththednatattoo (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Historia or Historiae
What's the correct name?--Miguelferig (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The book is the Historia Animalium, the History of Animals. On the title page you can see Historiae Animalium Liber Primus, the first book of the History of Animals – the -ae ending is the genitive (of). So the two things you offer aren't alternatives really, and the article is correctly titled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)