Chapter 394

2312Hardouin 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.

2313Hardouin 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.

2314B. xxx. c. 53.

2315About 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.

2316The 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 saytwocubits.” Aristotle, however, beyond a doubt saysfive.

2317Now 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.”

2318Cuvier 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 itκητώδης, “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.

2319Cuvier 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 oradelusof 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.

2320Rezzonico 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.

2321Cuvier 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.

2322The 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.

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

2324See 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.

2325Cuvier 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.

2326Solinus 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, aresixcubits in length, and that they havetwo arms. He gives the same account as to their extraordinary strength.

2327It 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 twoteeth, and notgills, 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.

2328Although 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.

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

2331Or “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.

2333The 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.

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

2337From the Greekκύβια.

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

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

2340This 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.”

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

2342Generally 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.

2343Cetarias. 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.”

2344As 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.

2345Aristotle, 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 thephocena[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.

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

2347Called “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.

2348Hence, 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.

2349Aristotle, 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.

2350Cuvier 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.

2351Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.

2352Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.

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

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

2355Cuvier 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.”

2356Aristotle, 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.

2357The 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.

2358The 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.

2359Pliny 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.

2360The 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.

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

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

2363Aristotle, 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.

2364This 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.

2365Aristotle, 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.

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

2367In 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.”

2368Appian 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.”

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

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

2371The 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.

2372Cuvier 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.

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

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

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

2376Cuvier 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.

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

2378Aristotle, 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.

2379Fromσκιὰ, 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.

2380Or 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 theφάγροςof 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 itφάγρος, 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 theφάγρον 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.

2381Hardouin 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.

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

2383Cuvier 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,” fromἀρνὸς, “a lamb.”

2384Cuvier 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 Greekκόραξ, “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 itπέλτη, “the buckler;” and in B. vii., that the people of Alexandria called itπλάταξ, 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.

2385Cuvier 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.

2386This 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.”

Back to Index Next