2304 By us known as the “angel-fish,” the “Squalus squatina” of Linnæus, a kind of shark. From this property of its skin, it was called by the Greeks ῥίνη the “file.” See B. xxxii. c. 53.

2305 Probably the Muræna helena of Linnæus. See more on it in c. 23 of the present Book.

2306 Spoken of more fully in c. 23 of this Book.

2307 Cuvier remarks, how very inappropriately Pliny places the pristis (probably the saw-fish) and the balæna among the animals that are covered with hair. Aristotle, he says, in his Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 12, goes so far as to say that the pristis and the ox-fish (a kind of ray or thorn-back, probably) bring forth their young like the balæna and the dolphin, but does not go beyond that. Cuvier says also, that what is here stated of the sea-calf is in general correct, except the statements as to the properties of its skin and its right fin, the stories relative to which are, of course, neither more nor less than fabulous.

2308 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 11, states to the like effect.

2309 “Fremitu.” From their lowing noise, the French have also called these animals “veaux de mer,” and we call them “sea-calves.” Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. xii. c. 56, and Diodorus Siculus, B. iii., also speak of training the sea-calf. Hardouin says that Lopez de Gomara, one of the more recent writers on Mexico, in his day, had given an account of an Indian sea-calf, or manati, as it was called by the natives, that had become quite tame, and answered readily to its name; and that, although not very large, it was able to bear ten men on its back. He also tells us of a much more extraordinary one, which Aldrovandus says he himself had seen at Bologna, which would give a cheer (vocem ederet) for the Christian princes when asked, but would refuse to do so for the Turks; just, Hardouin says, as we see dogs bark, and monkeys grin and jump, at the mention of a particular name.

2310 Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 408, mentions this fact, and Juvenal, Sat. iii. l. 238, alludes to it: “Would break the slumbers of Drusus and of sea-calves.”

2311 This assertion, though untrue, no doubt, as to sympathy with the tides, is in some degree supported by the statement of Rondelet, B. xvi. c. 6, who says that he had often perceived changes in the wind and weather prognosticated by the hide of this animal; for that when a south wind was about to blow, the hair would stand erect, while when a north wind was on the point of arising, it would lie so flat that you would hardly know that there was any hair on the surface.

2312 Hardouin remarks, that Pliny classes the viper probably among the aquatic animals, either because it was said to couple with the muræna, or else because it has a womb not unlike that of the cartilaginous fishes.

2313 Hardouin suggests that the proper reading here is probably 144, because in B. xxxii. c. 51, Pliny speaks of 174 different kinds of fishes, and here he says that the crustacea are thirty in number. Daubenton speaks of the species of fishes as being 866 in number, while Lacèpede says that he had examined more than a thousand, but that was far below the real number. Cuvier mentions specimens of about 6000 kinds of fishes, in the Cabinet du Roi. Ajasson remarks upon the learned investigations of Cuvier on this subject, and his researches in Sumatra, Java, Kamschatka, New Zealand, New Guinea, and elsewhere, for the purpose of increasing the list of the known kinds of fishes.

2314 B. xxx. c. 53.

2315 About 1200 pounds. Cetti, in his “Natural History of Sardinia,” vol. iii. p. 134, says that tunnies weighing a thousand pounds are far from uncommon, and that they have been taken weighing as much as 1800 pounds.

2316 The same as the Latin “dodrans,” or about nine inches. This passage is taken almost verbatim from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. c. 34. Cuvier says that this passage, although like the preceding one, taken from Aristotle, is much more incredible, (though Lacèpede, by the way, disputes Pliny’s statement as to the weight of the tunny). “A distance,” Cuvier says, “of from seven to eight feet from one point of the fork of the tail to the other, would denote a fish twenty-five feet in length; and it must be observed, that most of the MSS. of Pliny say two cubits.” Aristotle, however, beyond a doubt says five.

2317 Now universally recognized as the sly silurus, or sheat-fish, called in the United States the horn-pout, the Silurus glanis of Linnæus. On this formerly much-discussed question, Cuvier has an interesting Note. “There can now be no longer any doubt as to the silurus; it is evidently synonymous with the ‘glanis’ of Aristotle; as we find Pliny, in c. 17 and 51, giving the same characteristics of the silurus, as Aristotle does of the glanis, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20, and B. ix. c. 37; such, for instance, as the care it takes of its young, and the effects produced upon it by the dog-fish and the approach of storms. It is easy to prove also that it is not the sturgeon, [as Hardouin thought it to be], but the fish that is still called ‘silurus’ by the naturalists, the ‘wels’ or ‘schaid’ of the Germans, the ‘saluth’ of the Swiss, &c.”

2318 Cuvier remarks, that it is by no means clear what fish is meant by this name, which is only found here and once in Hesychius, who calls it κητώδης, “of the large kind.” Rondelet, in his account of river fish, suggests that “exos” is the proper reading, and that under this name is meant a species of sturgeon. Gesner asks if it might not possibly have been the “brochet;” but, as Cuvier says, that fish was well-known to the Romans under the name of “lucius” [our pike], and it is not sufficiently large for Pliny to compare it to the wels or the attilus, and for Hesychius to have enumerated it among the “large” fishes. It is in accordance, however, with this suggestion of Gesner that the pike genus bears the name of “esox” in modern Natural History.

2319 Cuvier says that there are found in the river Padus, or Po, several species of very large sturgeons, and that there is one of these which still bears the name, according to Salvian and Rondelet, of adello and adilo. Aldrovandus, he says, calls it adelo or ladano. This Cuvier takes to be the attilus of Pliny. But, according to Rezzonico, Paulus Jovius denies that the attilus or adelus of the people of Ferrara is of the sturgeon genus; but says that it is so much larger than the sturgeon, and so different in shape, flavour, value, and natural habits, that the names of these two fishes were used proverbially by the people, when they were desirous to signify two objects of totally different nature. Rezzonico remarks, that the name given to it in Ferrara was properly “l’adano,” which became corrupted into “ladano,” and expresses it as his opinion that it was the same with the esox of the Rhine. He also states, that, from the exceeding whiteness of the flesh, the ladano was called by the fishermen, sturione bianco.

2320 Rezzonico says that this may possibly have happened in Pliny’s day, but that in modern times no attilus or ladano is found weighing more than 500 pounds. He says that this fish may, in comparison with the sturgeon, be aptly called an inert fish; for while the sturgeon makes the greatest possible resistance to the fishermen, the other is taken with the greatest ease.

2321 Cuvier says, that this was probably the Petromyzon branchialis of Linnæus, the lampillon, a little fish resembling a worm, which adheres to the gills of other fish, and sucks the blood. The same name was also given to the Clupea alosa of Linnæus, our “shad;” indeed Linnæus gave this name to the whole herring and pilchard genus, erroneously classing them with the shad.

2322 The Main of the present day. But Dalechamps would read “Rheno;” for, he says, this river was not known to the ancients by the name of Mœnus.

2323 According to Albertus Magnus, this fish, which so strongly resembled the sea-pig, or porpoise, was the huso, a kind of sturgeon.

2324 See B. iv. c. 26. Cuvier says, that the fish here alluded to, is one of the large species of sturgeon, so common in the rivers that fall into the Black Sea, the bones of which are cartilaginous, and the flesh is generally excellent eating.

2325 Cuvier says, that this is probably the dolphin of the Ganges; a fish described by Dr. Roxburgh, in his “Account of Calcutta,” vol. vii. This fish, he says, has the muzzle and the tail of the common dolphin; but he declines to assert that it attains the length of sixteen cubits.

2326 Solinus gives an account of these worms of the Ganges, also from Sebosus, but not exactly to the same effect as Pliny. He says, that they are of an azure colour, are six cubits in length, and that they have two arms. He gives the same account as to their extraordinary strength.

2327 It is evident that there is some mistake in the MSS. either of Solinus or Pliny, as they both copied from the same source. Pliny speaks of “branchiæ,” or gills, while Solinus mentions “brachia,” or arms; the former, however, appears to be the preferable reading. Cuvier remarks that Ctesias, in his Indica, c. 27, has given a similar account, but that the worm mentioned by him has two teeth, and not gills, and that it only seizes oxen and camels, and not elephants. He states also, that an oil was extracted from it, which set on fire everything that it touched. Cuvier observes, that in most of the MSS. of Pliny the worm is sixty cubits long, instead of six, as in some few, a length which was quite necessary to enable it to devour an elephant; and he suggests that some large conger or muræna may have originally given rise to the story. It is by no means improbable that some individuals of the boa or python tribe, in the vicinity of the river, may have been taken for vast fish or river worms. Among the German traditions, we find the name “worm” given to huge serpents, which are said to have spread devastation far and wide; and in the north of England legends about similar “worms,” are by no means uncommon: the story about the “Laidly Worm,” in the county of Durham, for instance.

2328 Although taken primarily from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 9, as Cuvier observes, this assertion is incorrect, as the male does not in any way differ from the female in the conformation of the fins. Pliny, however, has exaggerated the statement of Aristotle, who only says, that the female differs from the male in having a little fin under the belly, which the male has not; and not that the male has no ventral fin whatever.

2329 “Magno mari;” meaning, no doubt, the Mediterranean.

2330 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 17.

2331 Or “mud-fish,” either from being born in mud, as Festus says, or from their concealing themselves in it.

2332 “Clidio.” The “clidion,” or “clidium,” was the part of the fish which extended, as Festus says, from the two shoulders (armos) to the breast. The “claviculæ” were thus called by the Greek physicians.

2333 The Greeks called the inner part, or black-coloured heart of the oak, μέλαν δρυὸς, whence the present name. Athenæus, B. vi. speaks of the choice parts cut from the orcyni, large tunnies, which were taken in the straits of Gades.

2334 “Faucibus.” Cuvier observes, that modern experience has confirmed what Pliny says, as to the difference of flavour in these various parts of the tunny. He refers to Cetti, Ist. Nat. di Sardegna, vol. iii. p. 137.

2335 “Exercitatissima.” “In greatest request, as being most stirred and exercised,” is the translation given by Holland; while Littré renders it “mieux nourries,” “best nourished.” According to the general notion in this country, the part about the tail is reckoned inferior, and anything but the “best nourished.” It is doubtful if “exercitatissima” is the correct reading; and if it is, its precise meaning has yet to be ascertained.

2336 From the Greek ἀπόλεκτοι, “choice bits,” or, as we should say, “tit-bits.”

2337 From the Greek κύβια.

2338 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.

2339 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.

2340 This fish does not seem to have been exactly identified till recently; but was generally supposed to have been of the tunny genus. Appian says, that it is rather smaller than the tunny. Rondelet, B. viii., speaks of it as being, in his time, known by the name of “byza.” Cuvier has the following remark. “The ‘amia’ of the ancients, as Rondelet was well aware, was the same fish, to which, incorrectly, upon nearly all the coasts of the Mediterranean, the name of ‘pelamis’ has been transferred. It is, in fact, the same as the ‘limosa’ of Salvianus, the ‘pelamis’ of Belon, the ‘thynnus primus’ of Aldrovandus, and the ‘scomber sarda’ of Bloch. The proof of all these being synonymous, is the fact, that the ‘scomber sarda’ is the only species of the tunny genus in the Mediterranean, which has strong, sharp, cutting teeth, and is capable of attacking large fish, which Aristotle relates respecting the amia, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 37. The same author too, was well aware of the length of its gall-bladder, which is greater than in most other fishes.”

2341 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16.

2342 Generally supposed, as Cuvier says, to have been the same as the mackerel, or Scomber scombrus of Linnæus, and with very fair reason. From the frequent remarks made on the subject by the Roman poets, we find that it was a very common fish at Rome, of small size, and was in little repute. It was wrapped in paper when exposed for sale, and bad poets were threatened with the mackerel, as they are at the present day with the grocer or butterman; or, as in the time of the Spectator, with the trunk-maker. Thus Persius says, Sat. i. l. 43. “and to leave writings worthy to be preserved in cedar, and verses that dread neither mackerel nor frankincense.” Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 2, enumerates this fish among those that are gregarious, and places it in company with the tunny and the pelamis, but states that it is inferior in strength, B. viii. c. 2. Cuvier says, that the mackerel still has names in different parts that are derived from the word “scomber,” they being called “sgombri” at Constantinople, scombri at Venice, and scurmu, scrumiu, and scumbirro in Sicily.

2343 Cetarias. These “cetariæ,” or “cetaria,” Papias says, were pieces of standing salt water, in the vicinity of the sea-shore, in which tunnies and other large fish were kept, and adjoining to which were the salting-houses. In the middle ages these preserves were called “tunnariæ,” or “tunneries.”

2344 As in the Euxine. Tunnies were caught on the Spanish coasts, as we learn from Athenæus, who, as quoted above, mentions the fisheries off Gades, for the orcynus, or large tunny. See N. 2333, p. 385.

2345 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, from whom Pliny has here borrowed, makes a somewhat dissimilar statement. He says that “no noxious animal enters the Euxine, except the phocena [or porpoise], and the dolphin and little dolphin.” Hardouin remarks, however, that Pliny is right in his statement that seals are to be found in the Euxine, and that Rondelet, B. xvi. c. 9, for that reason has suggested that the reading ought to be altered in Aristotle, and not in Pliny.

2346 Aristotle, B. viii. c. 6. Plutarch on the Instinct of Animals, and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 42, say the same.

2347 Called “chrysoceras,” in B. iv. c. 18, that being the Greek name for “golden horn.” He means, that in consequence of the lucrative nature of this fishery, it thence obtained the name of the “golden” horn. Dalechamps is of opinion that some person has here substituted the Latin “Aurei cornus,” for the Greek name Chrysoceras.

2348 Hence, according to Strabo, Chalcedon obtained the name of the “City of the Blind,” the people having neglected to choose the opposite shore for the site of their city. Still, however, a kind of pelamis, or young tunny, from this place, had the name of “Chalcedonia,” and is spoken of as a most exquisite dainty by Aulus Gellius, B. vii c. 16.

2349 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix.; and Plutarch, in his Treatise on the Instincts of Animals, state to a similar effect.

2350 Cuvier remarks that the “pompilos” of the ancients, which accompanied ships and left them on nearing the land, was the pilot-fish of the moderns, the Gasterosteus ductor of Linnæus. He thinks, however, that the name may have also been given to other fish as well, of similar habits.

2351 Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.

2352 Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.

2353 The cuttle-fish. The Sepia officinalis of Linnæus.

2354 The ink-fish. The Sepia loligo of Linnæus.

2355 Cuvier suggests that the turdus, or sea-thrush, and the merula, or sea-blackbird, were both fishes of the labrus tribe, usually known as “breams.” Hippolytus Salvianus, in his book on the Water Animals, states, that in his day—both these fish were extremely well known, and that they still retained the names of tordo and merlo. Rondelet, B. vi., says, that the fish anciently called turdus, was in his time known by the name of “vielle,” among the French. The dictionaries give “merling, or whiting,” as the synonyme of “merula.”

2356 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, says, that on going into the Euxine, the trichiæ are either taken or else devoured by the other fishes, for that they are never seen to return.

2357 The trichias, according to Cuvier, is a fish belonging to the family of herrings. A scholiast on Aristophanes attributes the origin of the name to the fine fish bones like hairs (θρὶξ), with which the flesh is filled, which is a characteristic peculiar to the herring kind. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 15, represents the membras, the trichis, and the trichias, as different ages of the same fish. The trichis was little, and very common. In Aristophanes, Knights, l. 662, we find an obol mentioned as the price of a hundred. From the Acharnæ of the same author, we learn that it was salted as provision for the fleets. Cuvier thinks that everything combines to point out the sardine, the Clupea sprattus of Linnæus, as the trichis, or else a similar kind of fish, the melette of the African coast, the Clupea meletta of the naturalists. In this latter case the trichias, he thinks, may have been the sardine, or, perhaps, the Clupea ficta of Lacèpede, which is called the “sardine” in some places, and at Lake Garda, in Lombardy, more especially.

2358 The Danube. Cuvier says, that this passage probably bears reference to the clupea ficta or finte, which, as well as the shad, is in the habit of passing up streams. As for the story of the fish finding their way to the Adriatic, it is utterly without foundation. Cuvier adds, that the main difference between the finte and the clupea alosa, or shad, is, that the former has very fine teeth, the latter none at all.

2359 Pliny has already remarked, B. iii. c. 18, in reference to the supposed descent of the Argonauts from the Ister into the Adriatic, that such a passage by water was totally impossible; hence, as Hardouin says, he is obliged here to have recourse to subterraneous passages.

2360 The Pleiades. See B. ii. c. 47. The rising of the Pleiades was considered the beginning of summer, being the forty-eighth day after the vernal equinox. See also B. xviii. c. 59.

2361 The evening setting, namely. This took place on the fourth day before the nones of November. See B. xviii. c. 74.

2362 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.

2363 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16. Hardouin remarks, that the tunny which Pliny mentions in c. 17, as weighing so many hundreds of pounds, must certainly have been older than this.

2364 This is, as Cuvier has remarked, a crustaceous insect of the parasitical class Lernæa, which are monoculous [and form the modern class of the Epizoa]. Gmelin, he says, has called it “Pennatula filosa,” though, in fact, it is not a pennatula [or polyp] at all. As Dalechamps observes, its appearance is very different from that of a scorpion. Penetrating the flesh of the tunny or sword-fish, it almost drives the creature to a state of madness.

2365 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19. Appian also, in his Halieutics, B. ii., makes mention of this animal. Pintianus remarks, that Athenæus, on reading this passage of Aristotle, read it not as “arachnes,” but “drachmes;” not the size of a spider, but the weight of a “drachma,” or Roman denarius.

2366 Or the emperor fish, Cuvier says, the Xiphias gladius of Linnæus.

2367 In confirmation of this, Suetonius says, “The day before Augustus fought the sea-battle off Sicily, while he was walking on the sea-shore, a fish leapt out of the sea and fell at his feet.”

2368 Appian tells us, B. v., that Sextus Pompeius, on gaining some successes against Augustus at sea, caused himself to be called the “Son of Neptune,” as having been adopted by that divinity. There is also a coin of Pompey extant, which attests that he adopted the surname of “Neptunius.”

2369 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 5. Cuvier remarks, that this is true, and more especially during the spawning season.

2370 Aristotle says the same, but with the expression of some doubt as to the truth of the assertion. B. vi. c. 13.

2371 The erythinus is supposed to be the roach, or rochet, of the present day, and the channe, the ruff or perch. Ovid, in his Halieuticon, l. 107, alludes to the same notion that is here mentioned: “And the channe, that reproduces itself, deprived of two-fold parents.” Cuvier remarks, that, wonderful as these assertions may be, they are not devoid, to all appearance, of a certain foundation; for that Cavolini has observed in the Perca cabrilla and Perca scriba of Linnæus, a species of hermaphroditism; the ovary having always in the interior a lobe, which, from its conformation, would appear to be for the milt; and that he is strongly of opinion that in this species, and some others of the same genus, all the fish produce eggs, and fecundate them themselves.

2372 Cuvier says, that the channe is the Perca cabrilla of Linnæus, one of the serrans or trumpet-fish of the coasts of Provence. According to Forskal, Fauna Arabica, and Sonnini, it still has the name among the Turks and modern Greeks, of “chani,” or “channo,” and it was in these that Cavolini observed the singular organization previously mentioned. According to Athenæus, B. vii., Aristotle has described this fish as of a red colour, variegated with black rays, which answers very well to the Perca scriba of Linnæus, approaching most nearly to the Perca cabrilla.

2373 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 75.

2374 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 7.

2375 Aristotle makes the same remark, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.

2376 Cuvier observes, that all fishes are found to have in the membranous labyrinth of the ear, bodies like stone, enclosed in a certain kind of gelatinous liquor. These bodies, however, he says, are not equally large in all kinds of fish. He says that it is found largest in the sciæna.

2377 The Perca labrax of Linnæus. Called “loup,” or “wolf,” on the Mediterranean coasts of France, and “bar” on the shores of the ocean.

2378 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, attributes to the chromis, Cuvier says, stones in the head, B. iv. c. 8, an acute hearing, B. iv. c. 9, the power of making a sort of grunting noise, and the habit of living gregariously, and depositing the eggs once a year, B. iv. c. 9; all which characteristics, he says, are found in the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the maigre of the French. In addition to this, Epicharmus, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., says that the chromis and the xiphias are, at the beginning of spring, the very best of fish; a quality which must be admitted to belong to the maigre, for its size and its excellent flavour. However, he says, seeing that the glaucus, which Aristotle has distinguished from the chromis, has a still stronger resemblance to the maigre, and that, as Belon informs us, the ombrine, or Sciæna cirrhosa, is still sometimes called at Marseilles the “chro,” or the “chrau,” and that, as Gyllius says, on the coast of Genoa it has the name of “chro,” it would not be improbable that this is really the chromis of the Greeks, as Belon supposes.

2379 From σκιὰ, the Greek for “shadow;” which name, as Cuvier says, has been translated by the moderns by the word “ombre,” or “umbra.” But this name has been given at the present day to so many fish of various kinds, from the “ombra” of the Italians and the “maigre” of the French, the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the ombrine or Sciæna cirrhosa of Linnæus, to the ombre of Auvergne, the Salmo thymallus of Linnæus, and the ombre chevalier, the Salmo umbra of Linnæus, that this synonyme does not aid us in discovering its identity. Aristotle says nothing relative to his sciæna, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, except that it has stones in the head, a thing that is common to this with many other fish. Pliny, in copying this passage, preserves the Greek name; but Ovid, Columella, and Ausonius give it the name of “umbra;” the one, however, described by the first two is a sea-fish, while that of Ausonius is a fresh-water fish. Varro, who cites the name of umbra among those given to fish, adds that the species which bears it owes its name to its peculiar colour; and as Ovid calls it “liveus,” or “livid,” it may be presumed to have been of a dark colour. It is very possible, then, that it may have been the corvus marinus, or sea-crow, the Sciæna nigra of Linnæus.

2380 Or pagrus. This passage is from Aristotle, Hist. Nat. B. viii. c. 19. Cuvier says that there are several names of fish, known in the Mediterranean at the present day, as being from the φάγρος of Aristotle, such as the pagri or pageau, the fragolino, &c. names of a fish of a red silvery hue, the Sparus erythrinus of Linnæus, his Sparus pagrus being another species. The modern Greeks also call it φάγρος, the best proof of its identity with the phagros of Aristotle, or pager or phagrus of Pliny. This phagrus, Cuvier says, was not improbably the same as the modern pagre, as their characteristics quite agree, so far as those of the ancient phagrus are described. It is of red colour, and we find Ovid (Halieut. l. 108,) speaking of the “rutilus pagur,” and it was, according to Aristotle, B. viii. c. 13, caught equally out at sea and near the shore, and had stones in the head, B. viii. c. 19, or, in other words, stony bodies of large size in the labyrinthine cavities of the ear. Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 185, says that the channe forms a delicate morsel for the pagrus, which shows that it was of considerable size; and several authors quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., give it the epithet of “great.” Hicesius says, in the same place, that it resembles the erythrus, the chromis, the anthias, and other fish of very different character among themselves; but it is only in relation to the flesh that he makes these comparisons, so that we are unable to come to any conclusion as to the form. But we find Numenius, also quoted by Athenæus, speaking of the φάγρον λοφίην, the “crested phagrus,” possibly in allusion to the height of the neck. The properties of its flesh are, if possible, still less characteristic. Hicesius says that it is of sweet flavour and nourishing, but rather astringent. Galen, however, says that it is hard, and difficult of digestion, when old. Archestratus looks upon its head as a delicacy, but thinks so little of the other parts, that they are not, in his opinion, worth carrying away. He was, however, well known to be much too refined in his notions of epicurism.

2381 Hardouin says that Aristotle, B. viii. c. 20, from whom this account is taken, does not say this of all kinds of fish, but only of those which have large heads.

2382 In B. viii. c. 54 and 55, where he is speaking of bears and other animals.

2383 Cuvier states that Pliny takes this name from Aristotle, and that Athenæus, B. vii., says that it is synonymous with the Greek name, κορύφαινη. He also informs us, that modern naturalists have applied these two names to the dorade of navigators, the lampuga of the Spaniards and Sicilians, the Coryphæna hippurus of Linnæus, but that it is not clear that it has been applied on sufficient grounds: as there is no trace whatever of either of the two ancient names on the coasts of the Mediterranean, and the ancient writers have given no sufficient characteristics of the coryphæna or hippurus. It was, we learn, of excellent flavour, and in the habit of springing out of the water, from which, Athenæus says, it received the name of “arneutes,” from ἀρνὸς, “a lamb.”

2384 Cuvier remarks, that Rondelet and others of the moderns have thought that this was synonymous with the crow-fish, the corb of the French, the Sciæna nigra of Linnæus, but that his own researches on the subject had led him to a different conclusion. Its name was derived, he says, from the Greek κόραξ, “a crow,” on account of the blackness of its colour, as Oppian says, Halieut. B. i. l. 133; but there were white ones as well, which Athenæus, B. viii., says, were the best eating, though the black ones were the most common. Aristophanes, as quoted by Athenæus, B. viii., calls it also the fish with black gills, μελανοπτέρυγον. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 10, says that it was a small fish, and one of those that increase rapidly in growth. It was little esteemed, and was much used, as we learn from Athenæus and the Geoponica, for salting, and making garum or fish-sauce. It was also used as a bait for the anthias or flower-fish. Strabo, B. xiii., also speaks of a river-fish of this name, as being found in the Nile; the flesh of which Athenæus mentions as being remarkably good eating, and the best among the fishes of the Nile. Martial also, B. xiii. Ep. 85, calls it “princeps Niliaci macelli,” the “prince of the produce of the Nile.” That fish, however, Pliny says, B. xxxii. c. 5, was peculiar to the Nile; and he states, B. v. c. 9, that in consequence of finding it in a lake of Lower Mauritania, Juba pretended that the Nile took its rise in that lake. Athenæus says, B. iii., that the dwellers on the Nile called it πέλτη, “the buckler;” and in B. vii., that the people of Alexandria called it πλάταξ, from its broad shape. Now, Cuvier remarks, it is well known that the best fish of the Nile at the present day is the bolty, the Labrus Niloticus of Linnæus, and the Chromis Nilotica of his own system; and this he takes to be the Coracinus albus. It is flat and compressed, and when held on the side, would appear almost circular in shape. Its colour appears white in comparison with that of another little fish of the same genus, the Sparus chromis of Linnæus, the Chromis castanea of Cuvier, which is of a brownish colour, and is found on the coast of France, where it has never been held in high esteem, except for the purposes of salting or making bait for other fish. He concludes, then, that this last was the sea coracinus, and the “bolty” of the present day that of the Nile.

2385 Cuvier says, that it has been doubted, upon the authority of Paulus Jovius, whether by this name was signified the muræna of the present day, the Muræna helena of Linnæus, or the Petromizon marinus of Linnæus, the modern lamprey. These two fishes, he says, have in common a long smooth body, and are devoid of the symmetrical fins, and the flesh of both is of a delicate flavour. There are, however, several other characteristics mentioned, he says, from which it can be easily proved that in most of the passages of Pliny, Aristotle, and Ælian, where the muræna is mentioned, it is the Muræna helena that is meant. Ovid says, Halieut. ll. 114, 115, “the muræna burning with its spots of gold”—but the lamprey has no yellow spots whatever: and in l. 27, he speaks of it as “ferox,” or “fierce,” a characteristic which also belongs to the muræna, but not to the lamprey. Ælian also states, B. x. c. 40, that the muræna defends itself with its teeth, which form a double row, and Aristotle says, B. viii. c. 2, that it lives upon flesh; while Pliny says, in c. 88 of the present Book, that it bites off the tail of the conger. It was the Muræna helena only, and not the lamprey, that could have devoured the slaves whom Vedius Pollio ordered to be thrown into their preserves, as is mentioned by our author in the present Book, and by Seneca and Tertullian. Finally, a thing that he considers quite decisive on the point, Aristotle says, B. ii. c. 13, that the muræna has four gills on each side, like the eel; while the fact is that the lamprey has only seven in all. Where we find Pliny speaking of the seven spots upon the muræna found in Northern Gaul, it appears most likely, Cuvier says, that he speaks after some traveller, who had observed the seven branchial orifices on the lamprey, and had taken them for spots.

2386 This fish, Cuvier says, was of a reddish colour, had rough scales, sharp teeth, large eyes, and a tough flesh. It lived a solitary life in the sea, near rocks which were the resort of shell-fish, which formed its principal nutriment. It passed the winter in the crevices of rocks under water. Its growth was rapid, and the length of its life two years; when cut in pieces, its muscles, were still seen to palpitate. Rondelet, having gathered these characteristics, looks upon the orphus as belonging to the genus Pagrus. Cuvier says, however, that it would not be easy to prove that this is a warranted conclusion, and that it is not justified by tradition, as the name has utterly disappeared from the coasts of France and Italy; though, according to Gillius and Belon, it is found among the modern Greeks, in the shape of the “ropho.” Cuvier suggests that it may have been the Anthias sacer of Bloch, the “barbier” of the French.—It is supposed by some that it is our “gilt-head.”

2387 The Muræna conger of Linnæus.

2388 “Percæ.” Cuvier says that it is most probable that he is here speaking of the fish generally known by the ancients as the sea-perch; and that there is reason for thinking that it was similar to the Perca scriba of Linnæus, having black lines running across the body. Most naturalists are of this opinion, he says, and the serran [our trumpet-fish] which bears this resemblance, is in many parts of Italy, at the present day, called the “Percia marina.”

2389 The Raia torpedo of Linnæus.

2390 Cuvier states, that Athenæus, B. vii., says that the psetta was the same as the rhombus of the Romans, the modern turbot, the Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus. From a passage, however, of Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 37, he feels convinced that it is the Pleuronectes rhombus of Linnæus, the barbue of the French, and with us the dab or sandling. Aristotle says in that passage, that it is in the habit of concealing itself in the sand, while it moves to and fro the filaments around the mouth, and so attracts the little fish. These filaments, Cuvier says, are small radii of the anterior part of the dorsal fin, which form a sort of fringe around the mouth, whence its French name of barbue. The turbot has no such filaments.

2391 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20. As Hardouin remarks, Aristotle appears to assign the sixty days to the glaucus only.

2392 Naturalists have generally supposed, following Rondelet, Cuvier says, that the ancient glaucus was one of the class of centronotal fishes, the Scomber amia, or the Scomber glaucus of Linnæus; but that the incorrectness of this notion is easily proved. Aristotle says, that in the glaucus the appendices to the pylorus are few in number, as in the dorado (the Sparus aurata of Linnæus), while on the other hand the centronoti have them in almost greater number than any other kind of fish. Athenæus says, B. iii., that the glaucus was a large fish, and Oppian, Hal. iii. l. 193, speaks of it as taken with mullet. Aristotle, B. ii. c. 13, says, that it dwelt in deep water; but, according to Oppian, Hal. i. 170, it sought its food among rocks and in the sand; in addition to which characteristics, we find that it was a fish highly esteemed as a delicacy, the head being the part more especially preferred. From all these circumstances, Cuvier concludes that it was more probably a maigre, the Sciæna aquila of Cuvier, than one of the centronotal fishes.

2393 Literally, the “little ass.” Cuvier says, that nearly all the naturalists, following Rondelet, apply this name to the merlus, the Gadus merluccius of Linnæus, or else the genus of the gadus, or cod, in general. It is true, he says, that the “onos,” or “ass” of the Greeks, the “asellus” of the Romans, was also known as the γαδὸς, by the Greeks; but still this onos had very different characteristics from those of the Gadus merluccius; and among all the gadi of Linnæus, he finds the only one that presents any of them to be the Gadus tricirrhatus, or sea-weasel, which he therefore thinks to represent the ancient “asellus.”

2394 Aurata, “golden-fish.” Cuvier observes, that by the Greeks this was called χρύσοφρυς, “eye-brow of gold.” It is the French daurade of the Mediterranean, the “Sparus aurata” of Linnæus, and is remarkable for a golden line in form of a crescent over the eyes. Ajasson remarks, that it was also called Ἰώνισκος, and suggests that it may have been originally called so from being first found in the Ionian Sea. From an epigram of Martial, B. xiii. Ep. 110, it would appear that this fish was considered a very great dainty, and that it was fattened with Lucrine oysters.

2395 This fish has been already mentioned in c. 17 of the present Book. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20, says this of the glanis.

2396 Further mention is made of this fish in c. 74 of the present Book. Aristotle mentions it in B. viii. c. 25, but says nothing about it being a sea-fish; while Dorion, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., expressly mentions it among the lake and river fish. Hence Dalechamps seems inclined to censure our author for this addition; but we find Oppian, Halieut. B. i. ll. 101 and 592, speaking of the sea cyprinus; and Athenæus speaks of the cyprinus of Aristotle as being a sea-fish.

2397 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20. This subject is also treated of by Pliny in B. ii. c. 40, and is again mentioned in B. xviii. c. 58.

2398 Cuvier remarks, that it does not appear that the characteristics of the mullet, here mentioned by Pliny, have been observed in modern times.

2399 The same story is told of the ostrich.

2400 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 4, states to a similar effect.

2401 Cuvier says, that the peculiarity in the scales here mentioned is not found in any fish; but that the sturgeon genus has, in place of scales, laminæ disposed in longitudinal lines in such a way, that the one does not lap over the other, as is the case with fish in general. It was this fact, misstated probably, that gave rise to the story; and it is most likely this that has led Rondelet, and most of the modern naturalists, to look upon the acipenser as the common sturgeon, and to give that name to the sturgeon genus. Athenæus reckons it among the cartilaginous fishes, and in the family of the squali; but Pliny here speaks of it as very rare, and Martial and Cicero say the same, which cannot be so accurately said of the sturgeon. Archestratus, in Athenæus, speaks of it as small, having a sharp-pointed muzzle, and of triangular shape, and tells us that a very inferior one was valued at 1000 Attic drachmæ. The sturgeon, on the other hand, is often ten or twelve feet in length. The acipenser was not always in vogue with the Romans, but when it was, it was most highly esteemed; and according to Athenæus, B. vii., and Sammonicus Severus, as quoted by Macrobius, B. ii. c. 12, it was brought to table by servants crowned with flowers and preceded by a piper. All these circumstances lead Cuvier to be of opinion that under this name is meant a kind of small sturgeon with a sharp muzzle, greatly esteemed by the Russians, and by them known as the sterlet, the Acipenser Ruthenus of Linnæus, the Acipenser Pygmæus of Pallas. It is found in the Black Sea, and in the rivers that fall into it; and has been carried with success to Lake Ladoga, as also Lake Meler, in Sweden. This is the smallest and most delicate of the sturgeon genus, and Professor Pallas says that they are sold at St. Petersburgh at “insane prices,” when more than two feet in length. It is not improbable that it was found in the rivers of Asia Minor, and thence carried to Rome occasionally. Pliny, indeed, B. xxxiii. c. 11, says that it is not a stranger to Italy; if so, it would seem to be different from the “elops,” of which Ovid says, Halieut. l. 96, “and the precious elops, unknown in our waters,” though he also says of the “acipenser,” in l. 132, “and thou, acipenser, famed in distant waters.” Still, however, Cuvier says, the use of names was not so accurate among the ancients, but what that of “acipenser” may have been given to the sturgeon in general; and this may have given rise to the present assertions of Pliny. Oppian, in Athenæus, B. vii., says, like Pliny, that the elops was the same as the acipenser, and we find no characteristics given of the elops to make us conclude that the two were not synonymous. Indeed, we find that Varro, De Re Rustica, B. ii. c. 6, and Pliny in c. 54 of the present Book, speak of the elops as being most excellent at Rhodes, while we find Archestratus in Athenæus, B. vii., speaking of the same as being the locality of the acipenser; and Columella, B. viii. c. 16, and Ælian, B. viii. c. 28, place it in the Pamphylian Sea, which is not far distant from Rhodes. Pliny, B. xxxii. c. 11, states, that the palm of fine flavour was by many accorded to the elops; while Matron Parodus, in Athenæus, calls it the “most noble of all fishes, food worthy of the gods.” From the immense sums that were given for it, as we learn from Varro, quoted by Nonius Marcellus, it was called the “multum munus,” or “multinummus,” the “much-money fish.” Ælian says, B. viii. c. 28, that the fishermen who were fortunate enough to take an elops, were in the habit of crowning themselves and their vessel with garlands, and announcing it, on entering harbour, by the sound of the trumpet. Professor Pallas, in his work on the Russian Zoography, takes the elops to be a kind of sturgeon, more spiny than the rest, which is represented by Marsigli under the name of “Huso sextus.” He does not, however, give his reason for fixing on this as the elops of the ancients. It has been also suggested that the elops was the same as the sword-fish.

2402 The wolf-fish. Generally supposed to be the basse, or lubin of the French, much esteemed for their delicacy.

2403 See N. 1966 above.

2404 Cuvier remarks, that we find this name in Euthydemus, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., used synonymously with that of “onos.” We also find the names Callarias, Galerias, and Galerides; but none of the characteristics are given, by which to distinguish them.

2405 Cuvier says that this fish held, as Pliny here states, the very highest place at the Roman tables, and was especially famous: First, because it was supposed to ruminate; in allusion to which, Ovid says, Halieut. l. 118, “But, on the other hand, some fishes extend themselves on the sands covered with weeds, as the scarus, which fish alone ruminates the food it has eaten.” Secondly, because, as Aristotle, B. viii. c. 2, and Ælian, B. i. c. 2, inform us, it lived solely on vegetables. Thirdly, because it had the faculty of producing a sound, as we learn from Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 134, and Suidas. Fourthly, for its salacious propensities, numbers being taken by means of a female attached to a string. Oppian, Halieut. B. iv. l. 78, and Ælian, B. i. c. 2. Fifthly, for its remarkable sagacity in affording assistance to another, when taken in the net; relative to which Ovid has the following curious passage, Halieut. l. 9, et seq. “The scarus is caught by stratagem beneath the waves, and at length dreads the bait fraught with treachery. It dares not strike the osiers with an effort of its head; but, turning away, as it loosens the twigs with frequent blows of its tail, it makes its passage, and escapes safely into the deep. Moreover, if perchance any kind scarus, swimming behind, sees it struggling within the osiers, he takes hold of its tail in his mouth, as it is thus turned away, and so it makes its escape.” Oppian, Halieut. B. iv. l. 40, and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 4, mention the same circumstance. We find that it was highly esteemed by the Roman epicures, even in early times, it being mentioned by Ennius and Horace. It was salted with the intestines in it; and Martial, B. xiii. Ep. 84, seems to speak of it as not being good to eat without them. It was a high-coloured fish, so much so, that Marcellus Sidetes called it “floridum,” while by Oppian it is called ποικίλον, or “variegated.” Rondelet thinks that it was one of spari or the labri, while Belon describes as such, a fish now unknown to zoologists, the tail of which, he says, has projecting spines. Aldrovandus calls it by the name of Scarus Cretensis, a species of the genus which at present goes by the name of Scarus, and which is distinguished by osseous jaw-bones, resembling in shape the beak of a parrot. Cuvier says, that on finding from Belon that the name σκάρος was still in use in the Ægean Sea, he ordered the various kinds of it to be brought to Paris; upon which he found that they exactly resembled the Scarus Cretensis of Aldrovandus, and he consequently has no doubt that it is essentially the same fish as the scarus of the Greeks and Romans. From the resemblance above stated, it is not uncommonly called the “parrot-fish;” while by some it has been thought to have resembled our char.

2406 See B. v. cc. 32, 41.

2407 Or weasel-fish. Cuvier is of opinion that Hardouin is right in his conjecture, that this is the Lote, or Gadus lota of Linnæus, which is still called motelle in some of the provinces of France. Its liver, he says, is one of the greatest delicacies that can be eaten.

2408 The present Boden See, or Lake of Constance.

2409 Instead of “marinis,” Sillig adopts the reading “murænis,” making them to rival the muræna even. The other, however, seems to be the preferable reading.

2410 Cuvier says that this is the τρίγλα of the Greeks, the triglia of modern Italy, the rouget of Provence, and the Mullus barbatus of Linnæus.

2411 The coasts of La Manche, Cuvier says, and the Gulf of Gascony produce a kind of mullet of larger size than usual, varied with stripes of a yellow colour. This, the Mullus surmuletus of Linnæus, is also to be found in the Mediterranean, but much more rarely than the smaller kind, which is red all over.

2412 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 41; and Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 435.

2413 Hardouin says that it is larger than the sea-mullet; and that it dwells in muddy or slimy spots in the vicinity of the sea-shore.

2414 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5.

2415 Probably from the fact of its living in the mud. “Doctors differ” on this point. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, says that shore-fish are superior to those caught out at sea; while Seneca, on the other hand, Nat. Quæst. B. iii. c. 18, says that rock-fish and those caught out at sea are the best.

2416 He would almost seem to imply by this that they feed upon shell-fish: but Hardouin has a note to the effect, that Pliny does not mean that they live on shell-fish, as it would be impossible for them to break the shell to devour the fish within, but only that they have the same flavour as shell-fish. But query as to this explanation.

2417 On the other hand, Isidorus says that the mullet-coloured shoes were so called from the colour of the fish, which, indeed, is most probable. These shoes were made of a kind of red Parthian leather, probably not unlike our morocco leather. Festus seems to say that they were worn in general by all the patricians; but the passage of Varro which he quotes, only shows that they were worn by the curule magistrates, the consul, prætor, and curule ædile.

2418 Hence their Greek name, τρίγλα, according to Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 590.

2419 Seneca has a passage on this subject, Quæst. Nat. B. iii. c. 18, which strongly bespeaks the barbarous tastes of the Romans. He says: “A mullet even, if just caught, is thought little of, unless it is allowed to die in the hand of your guest. They are carried about enclosed in globes of glass, and their colour is watched as they die, which is changed by the struggles of death into various shades and hues.” And again: “There is nothing, you say, more beautiful than the colours of the dying mullet; as it struggles and breathes forth its life, it is first purple, and then a paleness gradually comes over it; and then, placed as it is between life and death, an uncertain hue comes over it.”

2420 This anchovy, pickle, or fish-sauce, will be found more fully spoken of in B. xxxi. c. 44.

2421 Alecem. See B. xxxi. c. 44. Seneca speaks of this cruel custom of pickling fish alive, Quæst. Nat. B. iii. c. 17. “Other fish, again, they kill in sauces, and pickle them alive. There are some persons who look upon it as quite incredible that a fish should be able to live under-ground. How much more so would it appear to them, if they were to hear of a fish swimming in sauce, and that the chief dish of the banquet was killed at the banquet, feeding the eye before it does the gullet?”

2422 He may have been the son of C. Asinius Gallus, who was consul B.C. 8; but he does not appear to have ever been consul himself.

2423 The reign of the Emperor Caligula.

2424 Juvenal, Sat. iv. l. 15, speaks of a mullet being bought for 6000 sesterces, a thousand for every pound, and Suetonius tells us that in the reign of Tiberius three mullets were sold for 30,000 sesterces. It is in allusion to this kind of extravagance that Juvenal says, in the same Satire, that it is not unlikely that the fisherman could be bought as a slave for a smaller sum than the fish itself. At the above rate, each of these mullets sold for about £70 of our money.

2425 Cuvier says that although the mullet of the Indian Seas is in general larger than ours, it is never found at all approaching the weight here mentioned.

2426 The bolty of the modern Egyptians, as previously mentioned.

2427 Or Jove-fish. Cuvier says that Gillius has “applied the name of “faber” to the dory, or fish of Saint Peter, and has stated that the Dalmatians, who call it the “forga,” pretend that they can find in its bones all the instruments of a forge. After him, other modern naturalists have called the same fish Zeus faber; but nothing, Cuvier says, goes to prove that the dory is the fish so called by the ancients. The epithet even of “rare,” given to it by Ovid, Halieut. l. 112, is far from applicable to the dory, which is common enough in the Mediterranean. If, indeed, the χαλκεὺς of the Greeks were the same as the “faber,” as, indeed, we have reason to suppose, it would be something in favour of the dory, as Athenæus, B. vii., says that the χαλκεὺς is of a round shape: but then, on the other hand, Oppian, Halieut. B. v. l. 135, ranks it among the rock-fish which feed near rocks with herbage on them; while the dory is found only in the deep sea.

2428 Or “blacksmith.”

2429 Cuvier says that this fish has still the same name in Italy; that it is called the “saupe” in Provence, and the “vergadelle” in Languedoc, being the Sparus salpa of Linnæus; and that it still answers to all the ancient characteristics of the salpa, eating grass and filling its stomach, and having numerous red lines upon the body. It is common, and bad eating, but is no better at Ivica, the ancient Ebusus, than anywhere else. M. De la Roche, when describing the fishes of that island, says expressly that the flesh of the saupe is but very little esteemed there. Ovid, Halieut. l. 122, speaks of it as “deservedly held in little esteem.”

2430 See B. iii. c. 11.

2431 Neither at Ebusus nor anywhere else.

2432 Hardouin remarks, that Pliny and Ausonius are the only Latin writers that mention this fish; while not one among the Greeks speaks of it. It was probably a native of regions too far to the north for them to know much about it. In this country it holds the same rank that the scarus and the mullet seem to have held at the Roman tables.

2433 He must mean single ones, on each side of the head. Cuvier remarks, that the present passage is from a longer one in Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 13, which, however, has come down to us in such a corrupt and fragmentary state, that it is totally unintelligible, or, at all events, does not correspond with modern experience. No fish, he says, is known to us that has one or two gills only. The Lophii of the system of Linnæus have three gills on each side, and the greater number of fish four, with a half one attached to the opercule. Some cartilaginous fish, again, have five or six, and the lampreys seven.

2434 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iii. c. 10.

2435 The modern Lago di Como, and Lago Maggiore. See B. iii. c. 23.

2436 See c. 20, as to the Vergiliæ.

2437 Cuvier says, that in various species of the cyprinus, and more especially the rubellio, the Cyprinus rutilus of Linnæus, the roach, the Cyprinus jeses of Linnæus, and the bream, the Cyprinus brama of Linnæus, the male has, during the spawning season, little warts adhering to the skin and scales. This appearance has been remarked in especial on a species found in the lakes of Lombardy, known there as the “pigo,” and similar to the roach of other countries. It is most probable that it is to this appearance that Pliny alludes. Rondelet, in his book on Fishes, gives a representation of it, and calls it “pigus,” or “cyprinus clavatus;” but he wrongly, like Pliny, takes it to be a peculiar genus of fish.

2438 “Clavorum caligarium”—“nails for the caliga.” This was a strong, heavy sandal, worn by the Roman soldiers. It was worn by the centurions, but not by the superior officers; and from the use of it, the common soldiers, including the centurions, were distinguished by the name of “caligati.” The Emperor Caligula received that cognomen when a boy, in consequence of wearing the “caliga,” and being inured to the life of a common soldier. The hob-nails with which the “caliga” was studded are mentioned again in B. xxii. c. 46, and B. xxxiv. c. 41. Josephus tells us of the death of a Roman centurion, which was occasioned by these nails. As he was running over the marble pavement of the temple of Jerusalem, his foot slipped, and he was unable to rise, upon which he was overpowered by the Jews, and slain. After the decline of the Roman empire, the caliga was no longer worn by the soldiers, but was assumed by the monks and recluses.

2439 Dalechamps says, that in a similar manner, in the lake known by the name of Paladru, fish of most delicate flavour, called “umblæ,” were to be taken in the month of December, and at no other part of the year; so, too, the alausæ, which are found in the Rhine, near Strasburg, in the month of May only, and at no other time.

2440 Ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔξω κοιτᾶν “from its sleeping out of the water.” This fish is also mentioned by Theophrastus, in his Fragment on the “Fish that live on dry land;” by Clearchus the Peripatetic, as quoted by Athenæus, B. viii.; Oppian, in his Halieutics, B. i. l . 158; and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 36. The fish, however, mentioned by all these authorities, is a sea-fish, while that of Pliny, being found in Arcadia, must, of necessity, be a river fish. The proper name of the fish here mentioned by him was ποικιλίας, Hardouin says, so called from the variety of its colours. Cuvier says, that the fish here mentioned is not the Exocœtus of Linnæus, which is one of the flying fish, but is clearly of opinion that it is one of the genus Blennius, or Gobio, that is alluded to; for these small fish are often to be found left on the shore when the waters retire, and have the property of being able to remain alive for a considerable time without water.

2441 In the river Aroanius, which falls into the Clitorius. Pausanias mentions this story, but adds, that he never could hear the fish, although he often went there to listen. Mnaseas of Patræ, an author quoted by Athenæus, B. viii., also mentions these vocal fishes.

2442 Cuvier understands this to mean only, that the openings of the gills are remarkably small: for, as he says, there is no fish whatever without gills. It is very possible, however, that Pliny may have mistranslated a passage found in Athenæus, and quoted from Clearchus the Peripatetic, in which he says that some fish have a voice, and yet have no throat, βρόγχον; which may have, possibly, been mistaken by our author for βράγχια, “gills.”

2443 “Marini mures.” Cuvier says, that according to Oppian, Halieut. B. v. c. 174, et seq., the sea-mice, small as they are, attack other fish, and offer resistance even to man himself. Their skin, he says, is very solid, and their teeth very strong. Theophrastus names them along with seals and birds, as feeding both on land and at sea. Cuvier is somewhat at a loss whether to pronounce them, with Dalechamps, to be a kind of turtle. If so, he considers that this would be the little turtle, Testudo coriacea of Linnæus, which is by no means uncommon in the Mediterranean. He suggests, however, that there are equal grounds for taking it to be the Flasco psaro, or Tetrodon lineatus of Linnæus.

2444 The Sepia octopodia of Linnæus.

2445 The Muræna helena of Linnæus. This animal, Cuvier says, like the eel, is able to live out of water, in consequence of the minute size of the branchial orifices, as Theophrastus very accurately explains. It is a common opinion that they come out of the water in search of others of their kind; but Spallanzani was informed by the fishermen of Comacchio, that this hardly ever is the case, and that they will only leave the water when compelled. The polypus also crawls very briskly on the shore when it has been thrown up by the tide, and moves with considerable swiftness.

2446 This is also stated by the author of the treatise, De Mirab. Auscult. c. 72; and Theophrastus, in his work on the “Fishes that can live on land,” says, that these Indian fishes resemble the mullet. Cuvier says, that these fish are those known as the various species of the genus Ophicephalus of Bloch, which bear a strong resemblance to the mullet in the head and body. Mr. Hamilton Buchanan, in his “History of the Fishes of Bengal,” says, that these fish crawl on the grass to so great a distance from their rivers, that the people absolutely believe that they must have fallen from heaven.

2447 Or the “Fishes.” As if, indeed, Hardouin says, the resemblance of name given to the constellation could have any effect upon the fish!

2448 The turbot, Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.

2449 Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.

2450 “Passer.” Probably our “plaice”—the Pleuronectes platessa of Linnæus.

2451 The pleuronectes in general, Cuvier says, have the two eyes situate on the same side of the body. The turbot has them on the left side, and lies on the sand on the right side, while the plaice or the flounder has the eyes on the right, and lies on the left side—the reverse of what Pliny says.

2452 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 6.

2453 By this Pliny means, Cuvier says, only the symmetrical fins, or pairs of fins, the pectoral namely, which are in place of arms, and the ventral, which are instead of feet; of which, in fact, no fish has more than two pairs. Pliny does not include in this statement the dorsal, anal, and pectoral fins.

2454 Eels and congers, for instance, which have but one pair.

2455 Murænæ and lampreys.

2456 See B. iii. c. 17.

2457 Cuvier thinks that there can be no question that he is speaking here of some mollusc or crustaceous animal.

2458 Murænæ, like eels, have gills, but the orifice, Cuvier says, is much smaller than in the eel, and the opercula, under the skin, are so small as to be hardly perceptible; indeed, so much so, that modern naturalists, Lacepède, for instance, have denied the fact of their existence.

2459 Aristotle, De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 13, and Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 6.

2460 Or sting-ray. On the contrary, Cuvier says, the pastinaca, more than any other ray, has large pectoral fins, horizontally placed; but they adhere so closely to the body that they do not appear to be fins, unless closely examined.

2461 By this name, Cuvier says, he calls the tentacles or feelers, which adhere to the head of the polypus, and which it uses equally for the purpose of swimming or crawling.

2462 Spallanzani, in his “Nat. Hist. of the Eel in the Lagunes of Comacchio,” says, that immediately after their birth they retreat to the Lagunes, and at the end of five years re-enter the river Po.

2463 Eighty or a hundred hours at most, Spallanzani says.

2464 Cold, or a foul state of the water, Cuvier says, is very destructive to the eel.

2465 Or Pleiades. See c. 20.

2466 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 75, says the same, and likewise that they feed mostly at night. The reason for their not floating when dead, he says, is their peculiar conformation; the belly being so remarkably small that the water cannot find an entrance; added to which they have no fat upon them.

2467 See B. iii. c. 23.

2468 See B. iii. c. 20.

2469 The setting of the Pleiades or the rising of Arcturus. See B. ii. c. 47.

2470 Spallanzani informs us that the fishermen of the Lagunes of Comacchio form with reeds small chambers, by means of which they take the eels when endeavouring to re-enter the river Po; in these such vast multitudes are collected, that they are absolutely to be seen above the surface of the water.

2471 Excipulis.

2472 Hardouin says, that though this assertion is repeated by Pliny in c. 74 of the present Book, it is a mistake; we learn, however, from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 11, and Athenæus, B. vii., that the young of the muræna are remarkable for the quickness of their growth.

2473 This vulgar belief is, however, followed by Oppian, Halieut. B. i. c. 555; Athenæus, B. vii.; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 50, and B. ix. c. 66; and Nicander, Theriac., who, however, adds, “if indeed it is the truth.” It is also alluded to by Basil, in Hexaem. Homil. vii., and Ambrose, Homil. v. c. 7.

2474 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 11, only quotes this story as he had heard it, and does not vouch for its truth. Doro, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., makes the zmyrus and the muræna to be of totally different genera. The zmyrus, he says, is without bone, the whole of it is eatable, and it is remarkable for the tenderness of the flesh. There are two kinds, of which the best, he says, are those which are black.

2475 The common muræna, Cuvier says, is spotted with brown and yellow, but there is a larger kind, with stronger teeth and brown all over, the Muræna Christini, of Risso. This, he has no doubt, is the zmyrus of the ancients. Modern naturalists, he says, have incorrectly called Muræna zmyrus, a small kind of conger, which has yellow spots upon the neck.

2476 Cuvier has already made some remarks on this passage in one of his Notes to c. 24 of the present Book. See p. 395.

2477 The Seven Terriones, or plough oxen. The constellation of Ursa Major was thus called by the Romans.

2478 This wretched man was originally a freedman, and though he was on one occasion punished by Augustus for his cruelty, he left him a great part of his property. He died B.C. 15. He is supposed to be the same person as the one against whom Augustus wrote some Fescennine verses, mentioned by Macrobius, Sat. B. ii. c. 4.

2479 Until the Roman youth assumed the toga virilis, they wore the toga prætexta, or senatorial gown. The toga virilis was assumed at the Liberalia, in the month of March; and though no age appears to have been positively fixed for the ceremony, it probably took place, as a general rule, on the feast which next followed the completion of the fourteenth year; though it is not certain that the completion of the fourteenth year was not always the time observed. So long as a male wore the prætexta, he was considered “impubes,” and when he had assumed the toga virilis, he was “pubes.” Hence the word “investis,” or “prætextatus,” (here employed), was the same as impubes.

2480 Thus the “impubes” paid, as Hardouin says, “not in money, but in skin.” Isidorus, in his Glossary, says, “‘Anguilla’ is the name given to the ordinary ‘scutica,’ or whip with which boys are chastised at school.” The witty Rabelais says, B. ii. c. 30, “Whereupon his master gave him such a sound lashing with an eel-skin, that his own would have been worth nothing to make bag-pipe bags of.”

2481 The ray.

2482 The sting-ray; the Raia pastinaca of Linnæus.

2483 The angel-fish; the Squalus squatina of Linnæus.

2484 The Raia torpedo of Linnæus.

2485 Galen, in his explanation of words used by Hippocrates, speaks of the βοῦς θαλάσσιος, which is also described by Oppian, Halieut. B. ii. l. 141, et seq. He speaks of it as growing to the length of eleven or twelve cubits, and having small, weak teeth, which are not easily seen, and compares it in appearance to the roof of a house. Cuvier thinks, that although its horns are not mentioned, a species of large horned ray is alluded to, which is known by the modern naturalists by the name of Cephalopterus, and he thinks it very likely these horns may have given it its Greek appellation. Indeed Pliny himself, in another place, B. xxxii. c. 53, speaks of it under the name of “cornuta,” the “horned-fish.”

2486 A species of ray, most probably.

2487 Cuvier suggests that this was the mylobates, the Raia aquila of Linnæus, which probably obtained this name on account of the width of the pectoral fins, and its peculiar shape.

2488 Βάτραχος ἁλιεὺς, the sea-frog, the Lophius piscatorius of Linnæus, and the baudroie of the French. Cuvier remarks, that though there is little solidity or firmness in the bones of this animal, it is not properly a cartilaginous fish.

2489 This is borrowed from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v., who, however, says, καὶ πάντα τὰ γαλεώδη; from which Massarius, Turnebus, and Hippolytus Salvianus are inclined to read “galei,” instead of “squali.” Both terms, however, Hardouin says, are used to denote the genus which the French call “chiens de mer,” “dog-fish.”

2490 It is curious that Aristotle, though he was the inventor of this name, has nowhere stated in what it originated. Galen, De Alim. Fac. B. iii. c. 36, says that it is ἀπὸ τοῦ σέλας ἔχειν, from the fact of their shining at night.

2491 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5, and De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 13.

2492 In c. 7 of the present Book.

2493 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 8.

2494 Cuvier says that it is true that the sea-frog is oviparous; but it is far from being the case that all the cartilaginous fishes but it are viviparous. The rays, for instance, produce large eggs of a square shape, and enveloped with a very hard horny shell. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5, and B. ii. c. 16, makes the same exception as to the sea-frog or frog-fish.

2495 This is also from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17. Oppian also mentions it, Halieut. B. i. l. 223, et seq., but he gives it all the characteristics of the modern lamprey.

2496 This is the Echeneis remora of Linnæus, Cuvier says. It has upon the head an organ, by means of which it can attach itself to any body. It is thus enabled to fasten to ships and larger fishes; but as for staying a ship, it has not, as Cuvier remarks, the slightest power over the very smallest boat. All the eloquence, therefore, which Pliny expends upon it, in B. xxxii. c. 1, is entirely thrown away.

2497 Ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔχειν νῆας. “From holding back ships.”

2498 Used for the purpose of bringing back lost love, or preventing inconstancy.

2499 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17.

2500 Hardouin says that it is very possible that Aristotle may have written to this effect in some one of the fifty books of his that have perished, but that such is not the case in his account given of this fish in his Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17, for there he expressly says, “There are some people that say this fish has feet, whereas it has none at all; but they are deceived by the fins, which bear a resemblance to feet.” Cuvier says he cannot see in what way the fins of the remora, or sucking-fish, resemble feet, any more than those belonging to any other fish.

2501 Cuvier says, that the shell-fish to which Pliny here ascribes a power similar to that of the remora, is, if we may judge from his description of it, of the genus called Cypræa, and has very little doubt that its peculiar form caused its consecration to Venus, fully as much as its supposed miraculous powers. He also remarks that Hardouin, in his Note upon this passage, supposes an impossibility, in suggesting that the lips of this shell-fish can bite the sides of a ship; these lips or edges being hard and immoveable. For some curious particulars as to the peculiar form of some kinds of Cypræa, or cowry, and why they more especially attracted attention, and were held sacred to Venus, see the discussion on them, in the Defence made by Apuleius against the charge of sorcery, which was brought against him.

2502 Rondelet, B. xiii. c. 12, says that this kind of shell was formerly used for the purpose of smoothing paper.

2503 Herodotus tells us, B. iii. c. 48, that these were 300 boys of noble families of the Corcyræans, and that they were being sent from Periander of Corinth, to Alyattes, king of Sardes.

2504 Venus was fabled to have emerged from the sea in a shell.

2505 Rabelais refers to these wonderful stories about the echeneis or remora, B. iv. c. 62: “And indeed, why should he have thought this difficult, seeing that —— an echeneis or remora, a silly, weakly fish, in spite of all the winds that blow from the thirty-two points of the compass, will in the midst of a hurricane make you, the biggest first-rate, remain stock still, as if she were becalmed, or the blustering tribe had blown their last; nay, and with the flesh of that fish, preserved with salt, you may fish gold out of the deepest well that ever was sounded with a plummet; for it will certainly draw up the precious metal.”

2506 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 34; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. xii. c. 48. Rondelet is of opinion that this mæna was the fish still called menola by the people of Liguria and Rome. It was a fish little valued, and we find it called by Martial, “inutilis mæna,” B. xii. Epigr. 30. Cuvier says, that if it does not change from white to black, as Pliny states, its colours are much more lively in the spring. It also has an offensive smell at certain times, as is noticed by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 30, and to which Martial alludes in the above epigram. Ovid also mentions it as a fish of no value; held, in all probability, in the same degree of estimation as a sprat with us. It is, no doubt, the Sparus mæna of Linnæus.

2507 We learn from Aristotle, B. viii. c. 30, that the phycis was a whitish fish, which in the spring assumed a variegated colour. In an Epigram of Apollonides it is called “red;” and Speusippus, as quoted in Athenæus, B. v., says that it is similar to the perch and the channe. Ovid speaks of it as frequenting the shore, and Oppian represents it as dwelling among the sea-weed on the rocks. It also lived on shrimps, and its flesh was light and wholesome; while its most singular property was that of making its nest among the fucus or sea-weed, whence its name. All these characteristics, Cuvier says, are to be found, from what Olivi states, in the “go” of the Venetians, found in the Adriatic, the Gobius of Linnæus; the male of which in the spring makes a nest of the roots of the zostera in the mud, in which the female lays her eggs, which are fecundated by itself, and then protected by it against the attacks of enemies. This is probably the fish that is alluded to by Ovid, Halieut. l. 121, “The fish that imitates, beneath the waves, the pretty nests of the birds.”

2508 This name, Cuvier observes, is still common on the coasts of the Mediterranean, to two kinds of flying fish, the Dactylopterus, or Trigla volitans of Linnæus, and the Exocœtus volitans of Linnæus. It is to the first, he thinks, that the ancients more especially gave the name of swallow, although Salvianus and Belon are of the contrary opinion. Oppian, Halieut. B. ii. ll. 457-461, ranks the sea-swallow with the scorpion, the dragon, and other fish the spines of which produce mortal wounds, and Ælian, B. ii. c. 5, states to the same effect. But the exocœtus has no spines, while the dactylopterus has terrible ones on its præopercules. Speusippus also, as quoted in Athenæus, B. vii., gives no less decisive testimony, in saying that the sea-cuckoo, the trigla, and the sea-swallow, have a strong resemblance to each other; the fact being that the dactylopterus is of the same genus as the sea-cuckoo, the Trigla cuculus of Linnæus.

2509 Ovid, Halieut. l. 96, speaks of this fish as having a black back. Cuvier therefore suggests that it may possibly be the perlon, the Trigla hirundo of Linuæus, the back of which is of a dark brown, and the great size of the pectoral fins of which may have given rise to the notion of its being able to fly. It is also very possible, he says, that it may have been the exocœtus, the back of which is of a blue colour.

2510 Lucerna. Probably, as Cuvier says, one of those numerous molluscs, or zoophytes, which give out a brilliant light, and perhaps the Pyrosoma of Péron. No period being found in the MSS. after the word “milvus”—“kite,” it was long thought that this passage applied to the sea-kite; and it is owing to this circumstance that we find the ichthyologists enumerating a Trigla lucerna. The correction, however, is approved of by Cuvier, who says that he has found none of the genus triglæ to give forth a light; except, indeed, when, like other fish, it begins to be putrid.

2511 Probably the “cornuta,” mentioned in the Note on the sea-ox in c. 40; see p. 411. Cuvier says that it was long supposed that the fish here alluded to might be the Malarmat of the Mediterranean, the Trigla cataphracta of Linnæus, the muzzle of which is divided into two horns; but then they are only half an inch long, instead of a foot and a half. He is of opinion, therefore, that it is the great horned ray, now known as the cephalopterus, which, being often fifteen feet and more in diameter, answers much better to the description of its size implied by Pliny from the length of its horns. It is also mentioned under the name of cornuta in B. xxxii. c. 53, in company with the saw-fish, the sword-fish, the dog-fish, and other large fishes.

2512 Cuvier is of opinion, that Rondelet is correct in his suggestion that this is the sea-spider, called the “vive” in France, the viver or weever with us, and the Trachinus draco of Linnæus, which fish is still called δράκαινα by the modern Greeks. Pliny, in c. 48 of the present Book, charges the sea-spider with doing much mischief, by means of the spines or stickles on its back. Now Ælian, B. ii. c. 50, and Oppian, Halieut. l. 458, say the same of the sea-dragon; and this is a well-known property of the modern vive, the Trachinus draco of Linnæus. Pliny speaks more especially, in B. xxxii. c. 53, of the wounds which it makes with the spines or stickles of its opercules, which the vive is also able to inflict; and in addition to this, it has the power of burrowing into the sand in a most incredibly short space of time.

2513 Cuvier remarks, that this division of the bloodless fish by Aristotle into the mollusca, testacea, and crustacea, has been followed by naturalists almost down to the present day.

2514 The Sæpia loligo of Linnæus; the calmar of the French, or ink-fish.

2515 The Sæpia officinalis of Linnæus; the seche of the French; our cuttle-fish.

2516 The Sæpia octopodia of Linnæus, or eight-footed cuttle-fish.

2517 Cuvier remarks, that this account of the arms or feelers of the sæpia and loligo is very exact.

2518 “Quibus venantur.” Hardouin suggests that the proper reading would be “quibus natant”—“by means of which they swim;” for Aristotle says, in the corresponding passage, “with the fins that surround the body they swim.”

2519 Plautus has a line in his Rudens, which shows that when the sæpia was cooked for table, it was customary to take the eyes out. “Bid them knock out his eyes, just as the cooks do with the sæpia.”

2520 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, states to a similar effect, as also Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 34; Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 156.

2521 This so-called ink, Cuvier says, is neither their blood nor their bile, but a liquid that is secreted in a bag peculiar to the animal. It is said, that it is from the juices of certain polypi of the Eastern seas, that the genuine Indian or Chinese ink is made; but M. Abel Remusat assures us that he has found nothing in the Chinese writers to confirm this conjecture.

2522 This, as Hardouin says, is the polypus which is found on the sea-shore, and which more frequently comes on dry land than the other kinds.

2523 The arms of the polypus have numerous names with the Latin authors. Ovid calls them “flagella,”—“whips;” others again, “cirri”—“curls;” “pedes”—“feet;” “crura”—“legs;” and “crines”—“hair.”

2524 This, Cuvier says, is quite unintelligible; for all the polypi have an oval body, of the shape of a bag, and there is nothing in them that bears any resemblance to a tail, forked or otherwise.

2525 This channel, Cuvier says, is in form of a funnel reversed, by means of which the animal draws in and ejects the water that is requisite for its respiration, and discharges the ink and other excretions. It is in the fore-part of the body, and at the orifice of the bag, and not on the back, as Pliny says; but, as Cuvier remarks, it was very easy for a person to be deceived in this matter, as the head, being in form of a cylinder, and fringed with the so-called feet, cannot be said to be distinguished into an upper and lower side.

2526 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, says that the animal is obliged to do so, on account of the situation of the eyes.

2527 But Aristotle says, καθάπερ ἐμπεφυσημένην, “as though it were puffed out with air.”

2528 “Acetabulis.” The acetabulum was properly a vinegar cruet, in shape resembling an inverted cone; from a supposed similarity in the appearance, it is here applied to the suckers of the polypus. The Greek name is κοτυληδὼν.

2529 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 59.

2530 Cuvier says, that the changes of colour of the skin of the polypus are continual, and succeed each other with an extreme rapidity; but that it has not been observed, any more than the chameleon, to take the colour of objects in its vicinity.

2531 This notion is mentioned by Athenæus, Pherecrates, Alcæus, Hesiod, Oppian, and Ælian.

2532 Cuvier says, that Pliny states, in B. xxix. c. 28, that the colotis, or colotes of the Greeks, is the same as their ascalabotes, the “stellio” of the Latins. This stellio is the same as the “gecko” of the moderns, and the species known in Italy and Greece is the same as the “wall gecko” of the French, or the tarente of the Provencals. From what Pliny says here about its tail, it would appear to have been a lizard; but its identity with the stellio, Cuvier says, is very doubtful. It will be mentioned more at length in B. xi. c. 31.

2533 It is very true, Cuvier says, that the tail of the gecko and lizard will grow again after it has been cut off, but without vertebræ. As to the arms of the polypus, he says, it is very possible, seeing that the horns of the snail, which belongs to the same family, will grow again.

2534 This account of the nautilus, Cuvier says, the Argonauta argo of Linnæus, wonderful as it may appear, has been often confirmed by modern observation.

2535 This, Cuvier says, is not a membrane between the two feet or tentacles, but a distinct membranous delatation of the extremity of each of those two organs.

2536 These vessels have been already remarked upon in Note 33 to c. 5 of the present Book.

2537 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 61.

2538 From ὄζω, “to emit an odour.” This was a small kind of polypus.

2539 Cuvier remarks that, in this Chapter, there are many details relative to the polypus, that have not been observed by modern naturalists; but they may have been observed by the Greeks, upon whose shores and islands the animal was much more frequently to be found than in the west of Europe.

2540 Oppian, Halieut. B. ii. l. 260, describes the battles of these animals with the polypus. He also says, B. iii. c. 198, that they are attracted by the smell of the flesh of the polypus, and so are easily taken.

2541 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 59.

2542 Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 551, says, that they hardly live a year; and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 28, states to a similar effect.

2543 Basil attributes a similar craftiness to the crab; Hexaem. Homil. vii.

2544 The fishermen at the present day, upon the coast of Normandy, say that the polypus, which they call the chatrou, is a most formidable enemy to swimmers and divers; for when it has embraced any of the limbs with its tentacles, it adheres with such tenacity, that it is quite impossible for a person to disengage himself, or to move any of his limbs.

2545 In Spain; see B. iii. c. 3. Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 13, tells a similar story about a polypus at Puteoli.

2546 “Lacus;” large tubs used in the process of pickling. This story, Cuvier observes, is only surpassed by those told by the Norwegians relative to the “kraken” of their seas, which, according to some versions of the fable, is a polypus of such vast size, that sailors have sometimes mistaken it for an island.

2547 “Nassis.” The “nassa” was a contrivance for catching fish by the junction of osier or willow rods. It was probably made in the shape of a large bottle with a narrow mouth, and placed with the mouth facing the current. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 8, states, that the fishermen, when they were desirous of bringing the fish out of their holes, were in the habit of rubbing the mouth of the holes with salted flesh.

2548 Oppian, Halieut. B. i. c. 310, tells a story of a polypus, of the ozæna species, that was in the habit of climbing trees, and plundering the fruit.

2549 “Afflatu terribili.” This, as Hardouin says, may either mean its bad smell, or stinking water, ejected from its canal.

2550 Its arms or feelers. The amphora, as a measure of capacity, held about nine English gallons.

2551 “Caliculis;” literally, “little glasses.” Its “acetabula,” or suckers, are so called from their peculiar shape.

2552 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, says the same; but, as Hardouin observes, he must mean the Ionian sea.

2553 Cuvier says, that this is only a reproduction, under another name, and with other details, of the story of the nautilus or argonauta; but under the impression that the polyp is not the animal which owns the shell, but is only its associate. It has also been asserted in modern times, he says, that the polyp has seized this shell by force from some other animal, in order to convert it into its boat; but the opinion has not been adopted, as the shell of the nautilus has been never found in the possession of any other animal.

2554 Probably borrowed from the Greeks, who called it ἄκατος. It is supposed to have been a small boat, similar to the Roman “scapha;” like our “skiff” probably.

2555 The “rostrum” of the ancient ships of war.

2556 “Palmulis.” This word also means the blade or broad part of an oar; in which sense it may, perhaps, be here taken.

2557 “Locusta;” literally, the “locust” of the sea. By this name is meant, Cuvier says, the “langouste” of the French (our cray-fish), which has no large forcipes, and has a thorax covered with spines; the Palinurus quadricornis of the naturalists. This is clearly the κάραβος of Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 23; for we generally find it thus translated by Pliny, when he borrows anything from that philosopher. We know that the body of this animal was spiny, from the fact that Tiberius, as we learn from Suetonius, cruelly caused the face of a fisherman who had offended him, to be rubbed with a locusta.

2558 Aristotle, and Theophrastus, in his “Treatise on Animals which conceal themselves,” state to a similar effect.

2559 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 4, states to a similar effect.

2560 Aristotle, loc. cit., and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 25, state to the same effect.

2561 Hardouin says, that this must be only understood of the kind of crab known as the “astacus;” that being the one mentioned by Aristotle, in the passage from which Pliny has borrowed.

2562 He mentions, in B. ii. c. 41, the effect which the rays of the moon have upon the growth of shell-fish.

2563 Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, has a somewhat similar passage. “The kinds of crabs are numerous, and not easily to be enumerated. First, there are those known as maiæ, then the paguri, which are also called ‘heracleotici;’ and, after them, the river crabs. There are others, again, of a smaller size, and which, for the most part, are known by no name in particular.”