Animals Drawn from Nature and Engraved in Aqua-tinta

Animals Drawn from Nature and Engraved in Aqua-tinta is a book written and illustrated by Charles Catton the younger and published in London in 1788.

At the time Catton had not travelled abroad so he drew native British animals as well as exotics kept in captivity in Britain.

He became skilled in the artistic part of his trade and was well known for his ability at painting animals supporting coats of arms in a naturalistic way rather than heraldically.

[1] Charles Catton the younger (1756–1819) was apprenticed to his father, working closely to his style, and was trained at the Royal Academy schools.

[1][2] He exhibited regularly at the academy (1775–1800) – landscapes, animals and topographical watercolours – and was an occasional scene painter at Covent Garden Theatre (1781–1794).

[2][5][4] Shortly after "Animals" was published he contributed some illustrations for John White's 1790 Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales.

[16] An example of the British 1788 edition of Animals is described as having "hand-coloured aquatint plates by and after Catton, heightened with white and gum arabic."

"In 1791 the book was on sale for £3 17s 0d (equivalent to £580 in 2023) and £9 5s 0d (£1410) if the plates were coloured,[note 3] but by 1831 the inclusive price was only £3 13s 6d (£420) with the recommendation "Catton was an eminent coach-painter and a very superior draftsman.

However, when he saw Catton's work he thought the prints were feeble and the book was considerably overpriced – when "Quadrupeds" was published in 1790 it was "greeted with delight".

[20][note 4] At the end of the 18th century, it was controversial whether this creature was a bear-like sloth or a sloth-like bear, and the matter was still worthy of comment in Richard Owen's 1833 Zoological Magazine where Bewick is praised but Catton is given a slightly adverse review:[21] "Bewick, in his History of Quadrupeds, has given a characteristic figure and an accurate description of this species; and from the striking correspondence of parts observable between it and the common bear, as well as from an attentive examination of its disposition and manners, he was induced to place it in the same genus, notwithstanding it seemed to differ in some of those characteristics, which have been pointed out by naturalists as the guides to a regular and systematic arrangement.

Bewick's brother John was dealing with the publishers and wrote to Thomas:[19] "I was exceeding sorry, & vext, to see your Hyena done without a tail, an Animal so particularly well known among the Curious, I should thout you might have seen Mr Cattons, which is a pretty good one, I was obliged to cut it from the Proposals as I could not show it to any Body.