The capros, or carp, is called by Archestratus “The flower of nectar.” (Athenæus Deipnos. vii.) It is the cyprinus carpio L.
The hake (gadus merluccius) is generally supposed to be the gadus of Athenæus (vii); the asellus of Ovid, Varro, and Pliny; and oniscus of Marcellus Sideta. It was reckoned wholesome. The ancients do not appear to have been acquainted with the gadus eglofinus, or haddock.
According to Willoughby, the Latin poet Ausonius is the only ancient author who has noticed the tench or cyprinus tinca. We are inclined, however, to think that it is the ψύλων of Aristotle (H. A. vi, 14), and the γναφεὺς of Athenæus (vii.) See Casaubon (l. c.), and Rondelet (de Piscibus.)
We may mention here, although somewhat out of place, that neither the Greeks nor Romans would appear to have used the frog as an article of food.
SECT. XCI.—ON THE TESTACEA, OR SHELL-FISH.
The testacea in general form a saltish and crude chyme; but of them the oysters have the softest flesh, and are most laxative. The chemæ, purpuræ, solenes, spondyli, buccinæ, cochleæ, and such like, are hard. And those covered with a soft shell (crustacea) such as the astaci, paguri, crabs, common lobsters, and those called squillæ, are of difficult digestion, nutritious, and bind the belly when often boiled in sweet water. The juices of all the testacea are laxative, and therefore from the land snails, although their flesh be hard, indigestible, nutritious, and contains bad juices, some make a sauce, with oil and pickle, which they use for opening the belly. The sea urchins (echini) are moderately cooling, contain little nourishment, and are diuretic.
Commentary. Coray correctly states in his ‘Notes on the Fragment of Xenocrates,’ that, in the ancient classification of animals, the ὀστρακώδη or ὀστρακόδερμα, were divided into the σκληρόστρακα, or testacea, comprehending oysters, muscles, &c.; and the μαλακόστρακα, or crustacea, comprehending the crabs, paguri, &c. But, as he remarks afterwards, the σκληρόστρακα were often called by the generic term, ὀστρακόδερμα. The ancient division of the lower classes of animals is derived from Aristotle’s ‘History of Animals’ (iv), and with some slight modifications it is the same as the classification adopted by Baron Cuvier. Pliny thus distinguishes the mollusca, crustacea, and testacea: “Piscium quidam sanguine carent, de quibus dicemus. Sunt autem tria genera: in primis quæ mollia appellantur (mollusca?): deinde contecta crustis tenuibus (crustacea?): postremo testis conclusa duris (testacea?). Mollia sunt, loligo, sepia, polypus, et cetera ejus generis,” &c. In another place, however, he introduces confusion by applying the term mollia to the crustacea. This mistake probably originated in the resemblance between the Greek terms μαλάκια and μαλακόστρακα. (Hist. Nat. ix.)
We may mention further, that, in Oppian’s delightful poem on ‘Fishing,’ the crustacea are described at book i, l. 259, the testacea at l. 283, and the mollusca at l. 638. On the terms used by Ælian, see ‘De Nat. Animal.’ (ix, 6, ed. Schneider.) Athenæus gives a long disquisition on these animals in the third book of the ‘Deipnosophistæ.’