Chapter XXXIII: Book X: The Natural History of Birds (14)

[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.