[330] Cicero alludes to these opinions in his treatise De Divin. ii. 33; see also Aul. Gellius, ix. 7.
[331] The heliotropium of the moderns has not the property here assigned to it, and it may be doubted whether it exists in any plant, except in a very slight and imperfect degree: the subject will be considered more fully in a subsequent part of the work, xxii. 29, where the author gives a more particular account of the heliotrope.
[332] “conchyliorum;” this term appears to have been specifically applied to the animal from which the Tyrian dye was procured.
[333] “soricum fibras;” Alexandre remarks on these words, “fibras jecoris intellige, id est, lobos infimos ...;” Lemaire, i. 318; but I do not see any ground for this interpretation.
[334] It does not appear from what source our author derived this number; it is considerably greater than that stated by Ptolemy and the older astronomers. See the remarks of Hardouin and of Brotier; Lemaire. i. 319.
[335] The Vergiliæ or Pleiades are not in the tail of the Bull, according to the celestial atlas of the moderns.
[336] “Septemtriones.”
[337] The doctrine of Aristotle on the nature and formation of mists and clouds is contained in his treatises De Meteor. lib. i. cap. 9. p. 540, and De Mundo, cap. 4. p. 605. He employs the terms ἀτμὶς, νέφος, and νεφέλη, which are translated vapor, nubes and nebula, respectively. The distinction, however, between the two latter does not appear very clearly marked either in the Greek or the Latin, the two Greek words being indiscriminately applied to either of the Latin terms.
[338] It is doubtful how far this statement is correct; see the remarks of Hardouin, Lem. i. 320.
[339] The words in the original are respectively fulmen and fulgetrum; Seneca makes a similar distinction between fulmen and fulguratio: “Fulguratio est late ignis explicitus; fulmen est coactus ignis et impetu jactus.” Nat. Quæst. lib. ii. cap. 16. p. 706.