[2211] Also called the Cophetes. See B. vi. c. [25]. The commander of Alexander’s fleet more especially alluded to, is probably Nearchus, who wrote an account of his voyage, to which Pliny has previously made allusion in B. vi. and which is followed by Strabo, in B. xv., and by Arrian, in his “Indica.”
[2212] Hardouin remarks, that the Basques of his day were in the habit of fencing their gardens with the ribs of the whale, which sometimes exceeded twenty feet in length; and Cuvier says, that at the present time, the jaw-bone of the whale is used in Norway for the purpose of making beams or posts for buildings.
[2213] Onesicritus, quoted by Strabo, B. xv., says., that in the vicinity of Taprobane, or Ceylon, there were animals which had an amphibious life, some of which resembled oxen, some horses, and various other land animals. Cuvier is of opinion, that not improbably the “Trichecum manatum” and the “Trichecum dugong” of Linnæus are alluded to, which are herbivorous animals, though nearly allied to the cetacea, and which are in the habit of coming to pasture on the grass or sea-weed they may chance to find on the shore.
[2214] It is remarked by Cuvier, that there is no resemblance whatever between the domesticated animals and any of the cetacea; but that the imagination of the vulgar has pictured to itself these supposed resemblances, by the aid of a lively imagination.
[2215] From the Greek φυσητὴρ, “a blower,” probably one of the whale species, so called from its blowing forth the water. Hardouin remarks, that Pliny mentions the Gallic Ocean, in B. vi. c. 33, as ending at the Pyrenees; and, probably, by this term he means the modern Bay of Biscay. Rondeletius, B. xvi. c. 14, says, that this fish is the same that is called by the Narbonnese peio mular, by the Italians capidolio, and by the people of Saintonge, “sedenette.” Cuvier conjectures also, that this was some kind of large whale; a fish which was not unfrequently found, in former times, in the gulf of Aquitaine, the inhabitants of the shores of which were skilled in its pursuit. Ajasson states that Valmont de Bomare was of opinion that it was the porpoise; but, as he justly remarks, the size of that animal does not at all correspond with the magnitude of the “physeter,” as here mentioned.
[2216] Cuvier suggests that the idea of such an animal as the one here mentioned, probably took its rise in the kind of sea star-fish, now known as Medusa’s head, the Asterias of Linnæus; but that the enormous size here attributed to it, has no foundation whatever in reality. He remarks also, that the inhabitants of the north of Europe, have similar stories relative to a huge polypus, which they call the “kraken.” We may, however, be allowed to observe, that the “kraken,” or “korven,” mentioned by good bishop Pontoppidan, bears a closer resemblance to the so-called “sea-serpent,” than to anything of the polypus or sepia genus.
[2217] “Rotæ.” Cuvier suggests that this idea of the wheel was taken from the class of zoophytes named “Medusæ,” by Linnæus, which have the form of a disc, divided by radii, and dots which may have been taken for eyes. But then, as he says, there are none of them of an excessive size, as Pliny would seem to indicate by placing them in this Chapter, and which Ælian has absolutely attributed to them in B. xiii. c. 20. Of the largest rhizostoma, Cuvier says, that he had even seen, the diameter of the disc did not exceed two feet.
[2218] Lisbon. See B. iv. c. 35.
[2219] One of the Scholiasts on Homer says, that before the discovery of the brazen trumpet by the Tyrrhenians, the conch-shell was in general use for that purpose. Hardouin, with considerable credulity, remarks here, that it is no fable, that the nereids and tritons had a human face; and says that no less than fifteen instances, ancient and modern, had been adduced, in proof that such was the fact. He says that this was the belief of Scaliger, and quotes the book of Aldrovandus on Monsters, p. 36. But, as Cuvier remarks, it is impossible to explain these stories of nereids and tritons, on any other grounds than the fraudulent pretences of those who have exhibited them, or asserted that they have seen them. “It was only last year,” he says, “that all London was resorting to see a wonderful sight in what is commonly called a mermaid. I myself had the opportunity of examining a very similar object: it was the body of a child, in the mouth of which they had introduced the jaws of a sparus [probably our “gilt-head],” while for the legs was substituted the body of a lizard. The body of the London mermaid,” he says, “was that of an ape, and a fish attached to it supplied the place of the hind legs.”
[2220] Primarily the nereids were sea-nymphs, the daughters of Nereus and Doris. Dalechamps informs us, that Alexander ab Alexandro states that he once saw a nereid that had been thrown ashore on the coasts of the Peloponnesus, that Trapezuntius saw one as it was swimming, and that Draconetus Bonifacius, the Neapolitan, saw a triton that had been preserved in honey, and which many had seen when taken alive on the coast of Epirus. We may here remark, that the triton is the same as our “mer-man,” and the nereid is our “mermaid.”