[2321] Cuvier says, that this was probably the Petromyzon branchialis of Linnæus, the lampillon, a little fish resembling a worm, which adheres to the gills of other fish, and sucks the blood. The same name was also given to the Clupea alosa of Linnæus, our “shad;” indeed Linnæus gave this name to the whole herring and pilchard genus, erroneously classing them with the shad.
[2322] The Main of the present day. But Dalechamps would read “Rheno;” for, he says, this river was not known to the ancients by the name of Mœnus.
[2323] According to Albertus Magnus, this fish, which so strongly resembled the sea-pig, or porpoise, was the huso, a kind of sturgeon.
[2324] See B. iv. c. 26. Cuvier says, that the fish here alluded to, is one of the large species of sturgeon, so common in the rivers that fall into the Black Sea, the bones of which are cartilaginous, and the flesh is generally excellent eating.
[2325] Cuvier says, that this is probably the dolphin of the Ganges; a fish described by Dr. Roxburgh, in his “Account of Calcutta,” vol. vii. This fish, he says, has the muzzle and the tail of the common dolphin; but he declines to assert that it attains the length of sixteen cubits.
[2326] Solinus gives an account of these worms of the Ganges, also from Sebosus, but not exactly to the same effect as Pliny. He says, that they are of an azure colour, are six cubits in length, and that they have two arms. He gives the same account as to their extraordinary strength.
[2327] It is evident that there is some mistake in the MSS. either of Solinus or Pliny, as they both copied from the same source. Pliny speaks of “branchiæ,” or gills, while Solinus mentions “brachia,” or arms; the former, however, appears to be the preferable reading. Cuvier remarks that Ctesias, in his Indica, c. 27, has given a similar account, but that the worm mentioned by him has two teeth, and not gills, and that it only seizes oxen and camels, and not elephants. He states also, that an oil was extracted from it, which set on fire everything that it touched. Cuvier observes, that in most of the MSS. of Pliny the worm is sixty cubits long, instead of six, as in some few, a length which was quite necessary to enable it to devour an elephant; and he suggests that some large conger or muræna may have originally given rise to the story. It is by no means improbable that some individuals of the boa or python tribe, in the vicinity of the river, may have been taken for vast fish or river worms. Among the German traditions, we find the name “worm” given to huge serpents, which are said to have spread devastation far and wide; and in the north of England legends about similar “worms,” are by no means uncommon: the story about the “Laidly Worm,” in the county of Durham, for instance.
[2328] Although taken primarily from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 9, as Cuvier observes, this assertion is incorrect, as the male does not in any way differ from the female in the conformation of the fins. Pliny, however, has exaggerated the statement of Aristotle, who only says, that the female differs from the male in having a little fin under the belly, which the male has not; and not that the male has no ventral fin whatever.
[2329] “Magno mari;” meaning, no doubt, the Mediterranean.
[2330] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 17.