Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
Table of Contents:
1 Cuvier remarks, that nothing is known of the fish of the Euphrates here mentioned by Pliny from Theophrastus; as, indeed, all particulars relative to the fresh-water fish of foreign countries are the portion of Ichthyology with which we are the least acquainted. Judging, however, from what is stated as to their habits and appearance, they may be various species of the genus Gobius of Linnæus, and more especially the one called periophthalmus by Bloch. These species are in the habit of crawling along the grass on the banks of rivers.
2 Generally considered the same as our gudgeon. It is called "cobio" (from the Greek κωβιὸς), by Pliny, in B. xxxii. c. 53. It was a worthless fish, "Vilis piscis," as Juvenal says.
3 What Heraclea, if that is the correct reading, is meant here, it is impossible to say. Cromna is mentioned in B. vi. c. 2.
4 Cuvier thinks, that Pliny here alludes to a species of loche, the Cobitis fossilis of Linnæus, which keeps itself concealed in the mud, and can survive a long time in it, after the water above it is absorbed. Hence it is often found alive in the mud of drained marshes, or in the dried-up beds of rivers.
5 Cuvier remarks, that many fish, the orifice of the gills of which, like those of the eel, is small, or which have in the interior of those parts organs proper for the preservation there of water, are able, like the eel, to live for some time on dry land; such, for instance, as the periophthalmi previously mentioned, the chironectes, the ophicephali, the anabas, and others; but it is difficult to say, he observes, of what species were those of the Lycus, which are here mentioned.
6 Or turtle. See c. 12 of the present Book.
7 It is most probable that Sillig is right in his supposition, that "quam" should be read "æquam;" otherwise it does not appear that any sense can be made of the passage. Schneider, in his commentaries upon Theophrastus, Sillig says, quite despaired of either amending or explaining this passage; which, however, with Sillig's emendation is very easily to be understood.
8 In accordance with the opinion of Vossius and Sillig, we read here "in illis," instead of the common, and most probably incorrect, reading, in nullis."
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.
View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.