Chaps. 15-21.

Chap. 15. (13.)—Those Which Are Covered with Hair, or Have None, and How They Bring Forth. Sea-calves, or Phocæ.

Those aquatic animals which are covered with hair are viviparous, such, for instance, as the pristis, the balæna, [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.] and the sea-calf. This last brings forth its young on land, and, like the sheep, produces an after-birth. In coupling, they adhere after the manner of the canine species; the female sometimes produces even more than two, and rears her young at the breast. She does not take them down to the sea until the twelfth day, and after that time makes them become used to it by degrees. [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 11, states to the like effect.] These animals are killed with the greatest difficulty, unless the head is cut off at once. They make a noise which sounds like lowing, whence their name of “sea-calf.” They are susceptible, however, of training, and with their voice, as well as by gestures, can be taught to salute the public; when called by their name, they answer with a discordant kind of grunt. [“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.] No animal has a deeper sleep [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.”] than this; on dry land it creeps along as though on feet, by the aid of what it uses as fins when in the sea. Its skin, even when separated from the body, is said to retain a certain sensitive sympathy with the sea, and at the reflux [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.] of the tide, the hair on it always rises upright: in addition to which, it is said that there is in the right fin a certain soporiferous influence, and that, if placed under the head, it induces sleep.

(14.) There are only two animals without hair that are viviparous, the dolphin and the viper. [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.]

Chap. 16.—How Many Kinds of Fish There Are.

There are seventy-four [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.] species of fishes, exclusive of those that are covered with crusts; the kinds of which are thirty in number. We shall, on another occasion, [B. xxx. c. 53.] speak of each individually; but, for the present, we shall treat only of the nature of the more remarkable ones.

Chap. 17. (15.)—Which of the Fishes Are of the Largest Size.

Tunnies are among the most remarkable for their size; we have found one weighing as much as fifteen [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.] talents, the breadth of its tail being five cubits and a palm. [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.] In some of the rivers, also, there are fish of no less size, such, for instance, as the silurus [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.”] of the Nile, the isox [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.] of the Rhenus, and the attilus [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.] of the Padus, which, naturally of an inactive nature, sometimes grows so fat as to weigh a thousand pounds, and when taken with a hook, attached to a chain, requires a yoke of oxen to draw it [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.] on land. An extremely small fish, which is known as the clupea, [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.] attaches itself, with a wonderful tenacity, to a certain vein in the throat of the attilus, and destroys it by its bite. The silurus carries devastation with it wherever it goes, attacks every living creature, and often drags beneath the water horses as they swim. It is also remarkable, that in the Mœnus, [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.] a river of Germany, a fish that bears [According to Albertus Magnus, this fish, which so strongly resembled the sea-pig, or porpoise, was the huso, a kind of sturgeon.] a very strong resemblance to the sea-pig, requires to be drawn out of the water by a yoke of oxen; and, in the Danube, it is taken with large hooks of iron. [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.] In the Boryrsthenes, also, there is said to be a fish of enormous size, the flesh of which has no bones or spines in it, and is remarkable for its sweetness.

In the Granges, a river of India, there is a fish found which they call the platanista; [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.] it has the muzzle and the tail of the dolphin, and measures sixteen cubits in length. Statius Sebosus says, a thing that is marvellous in no small degree, that in the same river there are fishes [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.] found, called worms; these have two gills, [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.] and are sixty cubits in length; they are of an azure colour, and have received their name from their peculiar conformation. These fish, he says, are of such enormous strength, that with their teeth they seize hold of the trunks of elephants that come to drink, and so drag them into the water.

Chap. 18.—Tunnies, Cordyla, and Pelamides, and the Various Parts of Them That Are Salted. Melandrya, Apolecti, and Cybia.

The male tunny has no ventral fin; [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.] these fish enter the Euxine in large bodies from the main [“Magno mari;” meaning, no doubt, the Mediterranean.] sea, in the spring, and will spawn nowhere else. The young ones, which in autumn accompany the females to the open sea, are known as “cordyla.” [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 17.] In the spring they are called “pelamides,” [Or “mud-fish,” either from being born in mud, as Festus says, or from their concealing themselves in it.] from πηλὸς, the Greek for “mud,” and after they are a year old, “thynni.” When this fish is cut up into pieces, the neck, the belly, and the throat, [“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.] are the most esteemed parts; but they must be eaten only when they are quite fresh, and even then they cause severe fits of flatulence; the other parts; with the flesh entire, are preserved in salt. Those pieces, which bear a resemblance to an oaken board, have thence received the name of “melandrya.” [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.] The least esteemed among these parts are those which are the nearest to the tail, because they have no fat upon them; while those parts are considered the most delicate, which lie nearest the neck; [“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.] in other fishes, however, the parts about the tail have the most nutriment [“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.] in them. The pelamides are cut up into small sections, known as “apolecti;” [From the Greek ἀπόλεκτοι, “choice bits,” or, as we should say, “tit-bits.”] and these again are divided into cubical pieces, which are thence called “cybia.” [From the Greek κύβια.]

Chap. 19.—The Aurias and the Scomber.

All kinds of fish grow [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.] with remarkable rapidity, and more especially those in the Euxine; the reason [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.] of which is the vast number of rivers which discharge their fresh water into it. One fish, the growth of which is quite perceptible, day by day, is known as the amia. [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.”] This fish, and the pelamides, together with the tunnies, [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16.] enter the Euxine in shoals, for the purpose of obtaining a sweeter nutriment, each under the command of its own leader; but first of all the scomber [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.] appears, which is of a sulphureous tint when in the water, but when out of it resembles other fish in colour. The salt-water preserves [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.”] of Spain are filled with these last fish, but the tunnies do not consort with them. [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., p. 385.]

Chap. 20.—Fishes Which Are Never Found in the Euxine; Those Which Enter It and Return.

The Euxine, however, is never entered by any animal [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.] that is noxious to fish, with the exception of the sea-calf and the small dolphin. On entering, the tunnies range along [Aristotle, B. viii. c. 6. Plutarch on the Instinct of Animals, and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 42, say the same.] the shores to the right, and on departing, keep to those on the left; this is supposed to arise from the fact that they have better sight with the right eye, their powers of vision with either being naturally very limited. In the channel of the Thracian Bosporus, by which the Propontis is connected with the Euxine, at the narrowest part of the Straits which separate Europe from Asia, there is, near Chalcedon, on the Asiatic side, a rock of remarkable whiteness, the whole of which can be seen from the bottom of the sea at the surface. Alarmed at the sudden appearance of this rock, the tunnies always hasten in great numbers, and with headlong impetuosity, towards the promontory of Byzantium, which stands exactly opposite to it, and from this circumstance has received the name of the Golden Horn. [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.] Hence it is, that all the fishing is at Byzantium, to the great loss of Chalcedon, [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.] although it is only separated from it by a channel a mile in width. They wait, however, for the blowing of the north wind to leave the Euxine with a favourable tide, and are never taken until they have entered the harbour of Byzantium. These fish do not move about in winter; [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.] in whatever place they may happen to be surprised by it, there they pass the winter, till the time of the equinox.

Manifesting a wonderful degree of delight, they will often accompany a vessel in full sail, and may be seen from the poop following it for hours, and a distance of several miles. If a fish-spear even is thrown at them ever so many times, they are not in the slightest degree alarmed at it. Some writers call the tunnies which follow ships in this manner, by the name of “pompili.” [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.]

Many fishes pass the summer in the Propontis, and do not enter the Euxine; such, for instance, as the sole, [Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.] while on the other hand, the turbot [Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.] enters it. The sepia [The cuttle-fish. The Sepia officinalis of Linnæus.] is not found in this sea, although the loligo [The ink-fish. The Sepia loligo of Linnæus.] is. Among the rock-fish, the sea-thrush [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.”] and the sea-blackbird are wanting, as also purples, though oysters abound here. All these, however, pass the winter in the Ægean Sea; and of those which enter the Euxine, the only ones that do not [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.] return are the trichiæ. [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.] —It will be as well to use the Greek names which most of them bear, seeing that to the same species different countries have given different appellations.—These last, however, are the only ones that enter the river Ister, [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.] and passing along its subterraneous passages, make their way from it to the Adriatic; [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.] and this is the reason why they are to be seen descending into the Euxine Sea, but never in the act of returning from it. The time for taking tunnies is, from the rising of the Vergiliæ [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.] to the setting of Arcturus: [The evening setting, namely. This took place on the fourth day before the nones of November. See B. xviii. c. 74.] throughout the rest of the winter season, they lie concealed at the bottom of deep creeks, unless they are induced to come out by the warmth of the weather or the full moon. These fish fatten [Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.] to such an extraordinary degree as to burst. The longest period of their life [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.] is two years.

Chap. 21.—Why Fishes Leap Above the Surface of the Water.

There is a little animal, [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.] in appearance like a scorpion, and of the size of a spider. [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.] This creature, by means of its sting, attaches itself below the fin to the tunny and the fish known as the sword-fish [Or the emperor fish, Cuvier says, the Xiphias gladius of Linnæus.] and which often exceeds the dolphin in magnitude, and causes it such excruciating pain, that it will often leap on board of a ship even. Fish will also do the same at other times, when in dread of the violence of other fish, and mullets more especially, which are of such extraordinary swiftness, that they will sometimes leap over a ship, if lying crosswise.