Greek Biology & Greek Medicine

by Charles Singer

ENAIMA (Sanguineous and either viviparous oroviparous)
= vertebrates.
Viviparous in the internal sense.				1.	ἅνθρωπος. Man.
				2.	κήτη. Cetaceans.
				3.	ζῷα τετράποδα ζωοτόκα ὲν αὑτοῖς.
					Viviparous quadrupeds.
					(a) μὴ ἀμφώδοντα. Non-amphodonts
					= Ruminants with incisor in lower
					jaw only and with cloven hoofs.
					(b) μώνυχα. Solid-hoofed animals.
					i. λόφουρα. Equidae.
					ii. μώνυχα ἔτερα. Other solid-hoofed animals.
				4.	ὄρνιθες. Birds.
					(a) γαμψώνυχα. Birds of prey with talons.
					(b) στεγανόποδες. Swimmers with webbed feet.
		With			(c) περιστεροειδῆ. Pigeons, doves, &c.
		perfect			(d) ἄποδες. Swifts, martins, &c.
Oviparous		ovum.			(e) ὄρνιθες ἕτεροι. Other birds.
though				5.	ζὌῷα τετράποδα ῷοτόκα. Oviparous quadrupeds
sometimes					= Amphibians and most reptiles.
externally				6.	ὀφιώδη. Serpents.
viviparous.				7.	ἰχθύες. Fishes.
		With			(a) σελάχη. Selachians. Cartilaginous fishes
		imperfect			and, doubtfully, the fishing-frog.
		ovum.			(b) ιχθύες ἕτεροι. Other fishes.

ANAIMA (Non-sanguineous and either viviparous, vermiparous or budding)
= Invertebrates
With perfect ovum.		8.	μαλάκια. Cephalopods.
		9.	μαλακόστρακα. Crustaceans.
With ‘scolex’.		10.	ἔντομα. Insects, spiders, scorpions, &c.
With generative		11.	ὀστρακόδερμα.
slime, buds or			Molluscs (except Cephalopods),
spontaneous generation.			Echinoderms, &c.
With spontaneous		12.	ζωόφυτα. Sponges, Coelenterates, &c.
generation only.

Some of the elements in this classification are fundamentally unsatisfactory in that they are based on negative characters. Such is the group of Anaima which is parallelled by our own equally convenient and negative though morphologically meaningless equivalent Invertebrata. Others, such as the subdivisions of the viviparous quadrupeds, can only be forcibly extracted out of Aristotle’s text. But there are yet others, such as the separation of the cartilaginous from the bony fishes, that exhibit true genius and betray a knowledge that can only have been reached by careful investigation. Remarkably brilliant too is his treatment of Molluscs. There can be no doubt that he dissected the bodies and carefully watched the habits of octopuses and squids, Malacia as he calls them. He separates them too far from the other Molluscs, grouped by him as Ostracoderma, but his actual descriptions of the structure and sexual process of the cephalopods are exceedingly remarkable, and after being long disregarded or misunderstood were verified and repeated in the course of the nineteenth century.[54]

Passing from his general ideas on the nature and division of living creatures we may turn to some of the most noteworthy of his actual observations. In the realm of comparative anatomy proper we may instance that of the stomach of ruminants. He must have dissected these animals, for he gives a clear and correct account of the four chambers. ‘Animals’, he says, ‘present diversities in the structure of their stomachs. Of the viviparous quadrupeds, such of the horned animals as are not equally furnished with teeth in both jaws are furnished with four such chambers. These animals are those that are said to chew the cud. In these animals the oesophagus extends from the mouth downwards along the lung, from the midriff to the big stomach [rumen, or paunch], and this stomach is rough inside and semi-partitional. And connected with it near to the entry of the oesophagus is what is called the kekryphalos [reticulum, or honeycomb bag]; for outside it is like the stomach, but inside it resembles a netted cap; and the kekryphalos is a good deal smaller than the big stomach.’ The term kekryphalos was applied to the net that women wore over their hair to keep it in order. ‘Connected with this kekryphalos,’ he continues, ‘is the echinos [psalterium, or manyplies], rough inside and laminated, and of about the same size as the kekryphalos. Next after this comes what is called the enystron [abomasum], larger and longer than the echinos, furnished inside with numerous folds or ridges, large and smooth. After all this comes the gut....’[55] ‘All animals that have horns, the sheep for instance, the ox, the goat, the deer and the like, have these several stomachs.... The several cavities receive the food one from the other in succession: the first taking the unreduced substances, the second the same when somewhat reduced, the third when reduction is complete, and the fourth when the whole has become a smooth pulp....’[56] ‘Such is the stomach of those quadrupeds that are horned and have an unsymmetrical dentition (μὴ ἀμφώδοντα); and these animals differ one from another in the shape and size of the parts, and in the fact of the oesophagus reaching the stomach central-wise in some cases and sideways in others. Animals that are furnished equally with teeth in both jaws (ἀμφώδοντα) have one stomach; as man, the pig, the dog, the bear, the lion, the wolf.’[57]

A very famous example in the Aristotelian works anticipating modern biological knowledge is afforded by his reference to the mode of reproduction of the cephalopods. ‘The Malacia such as the octopus, the sepia, and the calamary, have sexual intercourse all in the same way; that is to say, they unite at the mouth by an interlacing of their tentacles. When, then, the octopus rests its so-called head against the ground and spreads abroad its tentacles, the other sex fits into the outspreading of these tentacles, and the two sexes then bring their suckers into mutual connexion. Some assert that the male has a kind of penis in one of his tentacles, the one in which are the largest suckers; and they further assert that the organ is tendinous in character growing attached right up to the middle of the tentacle, and that the latter enables it to enter the nostril or funnel of the female.’[58]

The reproductive processes of the Cephalopods were unknown to modern naturalists until the middle of the nineteenth century. Before that time several observers had noted the occasional presence of a peculiar parasite in the mantle cavity of female cephalopods and had described its supposed structure without tracing any relationship to the process of generation. In 1851 it was first shown that this supposed parasite was the arm of the male animal specially modified for reproductive purposes and broken off on insertion into the mantle cavity of the female[59]. The actual process of reproduction does not seem to have been observed until 1894[60].

Aristotle is perhaps at his best and happiest when describing the habits of living animals that he has himself observed. Among his most pleasing accounts are those of the fishing-frog and torpedo. In these creatures he did not fail to notice the displacement of the fins associated with the depressed form of the body.

‘In marine creatures,’ he says, ‘one may observe many ingenious devices adapted to the circumstances of their lives. For the account commonly given of the frog-fish or angler is quite true; as is also that of the torpedo....

‘In the Torpedo and the Fishing-frog the breadth of the anterior part of the body is not so great as to render locomotion by fins impossible, but in consequence of it the upper pair [pectorals] are placed further back and the under pair [ventrals] are placed close to the head, while to compensate for this advancement they are reduced in size so as to be smaller than the upper ones.