Buzz
During the early stages of exploration, researchers and naturalists depended on artistic renderings—often created from written accounts or deceased specimens—to visualize their findings. Considering the diverse sources, “it’s impressive how many depictions were accurate,” remarks Tom Baione, Harold Boeschenstein Director of the Department of Library Services at the American Museum of Natural History and editor of Natural Histories: Extraordinary Rare Book Selections from the American Museum of Natural History Library. However, some artistic interpretations of animals were slightly inaccurate, as demonstrated by the examples below. (Several of these illustrations are currently displayed in an exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History, inspired by its eponymous book.)
1. Octopus
© AMNH\D. Finnin
This cephalopod was featured in Conrad Gessner’s Historia Animalium, a five-volume series released between 1551 and 1558. “What always amazes me about the octopus is the incredible detail,” Baione notes. For printing, an artist would have transferred a sketch onto a woodblock—a highly intricate process. “The thought of carving away all the wood, leaving only thin slivers to represent the delicate lines of the animal—just imagining that seems incredibly complex,” Baione explains. However, one small detail is incorrect: Cephalopods have horizontal pupils, regardless of their position. This suggests the artist likely based the drawing on a deceased specimen.
2. Rhinoceros
© AMNH\D. Finnin
Gessner collaborated with various artists to produce illustrations for his Animalium volumes, sometimes using existing woodcuts, such as this one by Albrecht Dürer from 1515. Neither Dürer nor Gessner likely ever saw a rhinoceros in person. “Artists in the 16th century were essentially playing a visual game of telephone,” Baione remarks. “Dürer might have relied on other artists’ interpretations and written or verbal descriptions of the rhino’s key features. If you observe a real rhinoceros, especially in motion, its body does resemble plates hanging loosely. It’s not surprising that someone, given such descriptions, might have created an image like this for a woodblock.”
Over time, depictions of rhinos in natural history books became more accurate: “As more people saw the animal, they could point out inaccuracies like, ‘It doesn’t have a horn there,’” Baione says. “‘It lacks a beard. Its legs aren’t shaped that way. Its tail isn’t that hairy. It actually has two horns, not one. The horn isn’t scaly. The ears are smaller.’ Gradually, the illustrations were refined to reflect a more realistic portrayal. Eventually, both living and preserved rhino specimens were brought to Europe.”
3. Walrus
Wikimedia Commons
This illustration, also from Gessner’s Historia Animalium, exemplifies how details can be distorted through miscommunication. “We know walruses have four limbs,” Baione explains. “However, due to unclear descriptions reaching the artist, the fins are depicted as separate from the limbs rather than being part of them.” The walrus sketch (not featured in the book Natural Histories or the exhibition) is remarkable for another reason: Walruses are Arctic animals, and during that period, “Arctic exploration was limited,” Baione notes. “Many who encountered Arctic creatures were on perilous journeys, often with no return. It’s astonishing that information about such a creature reached Gessner in Zurich, Switzerland, at that time.”
4. Puffer Fish
© AMNH\D. Finnin
These illustrations, featured in Louis Renard’s 1719 book Poissons, écrevisses et crabes, de diverses couleurs et figures extraordinaires, were created by artists working from specimens. The artists intentionally enhanced the fish with bright colors, unusual patterns, and human-like facial expressions. The puffer fish, for instance, appears almost furious. “I particularly enjoy the puffer fish’s expression,” Baione remarks. “Noticing its unique features requires a closer examination—something this exhibit facilitates by greatly enlarging the book illustrations, making it easier to observe its subtle expression and vivid coloring. It looks as though it might leap off the page and take a bite out of you!”
5. Mandrill
© AMNH\D. Finnin
This depiction, from Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber’s 19th-century book Mammals Illustrated From Nature, With Descriptions, is relatively accurate—though the mandrill is posed in a distinctly human, rather than primate-like, manner. “We wanted the mandrill to highlight how anthropomorphized these images often were,” Baione explains. “Some are almost comically human-like, so we chose not to include them. We felt the mandrill, with its striking colors and thoughtful, wise expression, was a better choice.” The primate’s hands, however, seem oddly human. “In the illustration, his hands should have resembled his feet more closely, but that’s how it turned out,” Baione notes. “It’s as if the mandrill impersonator forgot to wear his mandrill gloves.”
6. Two-Toed Sloth
© AMNH\D. Finnin
This illustration is from Albert Seba’s four-volume Thesaurus, published in the 18th century. “Seba, based in Amsterdam, is best known for his extensive collections,” Baione explains. “As an apothecary, he sought to acquire and identify natural substances—whether from a lizard’s gallbladder or a plant’s seed—and experimented with them to create salves, tinctures, and ointments that might alleviate symptoms—or, just as often, worsen them.”
Seba would visit the docks to trade with ailing sailors returning from voyages, exchanging his remedies for their exotic specimens, which likely included this two-toed sloth. Since Seba’s artists worked from both preserved and live specimens, they could accurately depict anatomical details but not behaviors—this sloth is portrayed moving upright through trees, whereas real sloths hang upside down.
This approach to naturalism had its flaws: “By the 18th century, people in distant regions knew these eccentric Europeans were fascinated by oddities,” Baione notes. “If you could present something they’d never seen—even if you fabricated it—they might pay handsomely or reward you generously. As a result, Seba collected and illustrated many creatures that we now know were entirely fictional.”
