[1648] Supposed to have been in Mysia, or Bithynia, considerably to the west of Pontus.—B.
[1649] This account is entirely without foundation. The same statement is made by Ælian, Anim. Nat. B. ii. c. 21, who probably copied it from Metrodorus. There are stories of the power which serpents possess of fascinating birds by the eye, but they are not improbably without foundation.—B. There is little doubt, however, that some serpents have the power, by some means or other, of fascinating the birds which they make their prey.
[1650] This is referred to by many ancient writers; among others, by Livy, B. xviii.; Florus, B. ii. c. 2; Valerius Maximus, B. i. c. 8; and Aulus Gellius, B. vi. c. 3.—B.
[1651] As Cuvier remarks, it is difficult to conceive what he means by the boa of Italy. At the present day, the longest Italian serpents are the Æsculapian serpent (a harmless animal), and the “Coluber quadrilineatus” of Linnæus, neither of which exceeds ten feet in length. The one here mentioned, was probably, as Cuvier suggests, one of the genuine boa or python species; but, as he says, where did it come from? and how did it get there?
[1652] It is doubtful whether any one ever witnessed a serpent sucking a cow, but it seems to have been generally believed, and it is therefore probable, that the name of the animal was derived from this circumstance.—B. It is still believed of the common snake in some parts of this country. The reading “primo” has been preferred to “trimo,” that adopted by Sillig.
[1653] Cuvier remarks upon the two animals here mentioned, the bison and the urus, that Europe, at the present time, contains only one species of wild ox, the bison, or aurochs of the Germans, which still exists, although in small numbers only, in the forests of Lithuania. There are, however, fossil remains, in different parts of the north of Europe, of other animals of the same genus, which may have been the urus of Pliny, and not extinct when he wrote. Ajasson, vol. vi. pp. 413, 414; Lemaire, vol. iii. p. 365. The description by Cæsar of the urus of Gaul, Bell. Gall. B. vi. c. 26, seems to agree with the remains of the fossil animal, and may, therefore, be considered as confirming the opinion, that both animals were in existence when Pliny wrote.—B.
[1654] This appears to have been a species of antelope, the Antelope bubalus of Linnæus. Cuvier observes, that Strabo places it among the gazelles, and Aristotle associates it with the stag and the deer, while Oppian’s description of the urus, agrees with those of the gazelle.—B.
[1655] We learn from various travellers, that there are troops of wild horses and asses in many parts of Tartary and the neighbouring countries; but it is doubtful whether they have proceeded from an original wild stock, or may not have been the produce of some individuals which had accidentally escaped from the domestic state.—B.
[1656] No doubt Pliny has fallen into an error on this subject, and his elk and achlis are, in reality, the same animal. The description of the latter, for the most part, applies to the former, with the exception of the want of joints in the legs, which is entirely without foundation. Cæsar’s account of the elk, Bell. Gall. B. vi. c. 27, agrees generally with Pliny’s account of the achlis; he also says, that the legs of the alces are “without articulations and joints.”
[1657] The Romans had but a very imperfect knowledge of the Scandinavian peninsula. They supposed it to be surrounded by the ocean, and to be composed of many islands, which Ptolemy calls Scandiæ. Of these, the largest bore especially the name of Scandia or Scandinavia, by which name the modern Sweden was probably indicated. See B. iv. c. 30.