[2371] The erythinus is supposed to be the roach, or rochet, of the present day, and the channe, the ruff or perch. Ovid, in his Halieuticon, l. 107, alludes to the same notion that is here mentioned: “And the channe, that reproduces itself, deprived of two-fold parents.” Cuvier remarks, that, wonderful as these assertions may be, they are not devoid, to all appearance, of a certain foundation; for that Cavolini has observed in the Perca cabrilla and Perca scriba of Linnæus, a species of hermaphroditism; the ovary having always in the interior a lobe, which, from its conformation, would appear to be for the milt; and that he is strongly of opinion that in this species, and some others of the same genus, all the fish produce eggs, and fecundate them themselves.
[2372] Cuvier says, that the channe is the Perca cabrilla of Linnæus, one of the serrans or trumpet-fish of the coasts of Provence. According to Forskal, Fauna Arabica, and Sonnini, it still has the name among the Turks and modern Greeks, of “chani,” or “channo,” and it was in these that Cavolini observed the singular organization previously mentioned. According to Athenæus, B. vii., Aristotle has described this fish as of a red colour, variegated with black rays, which answers very well to the Perca scriba of Linnæus, approaching most nearly to the Perca cabrilla.
[2373] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 75.
[2374] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 7.
[2375] Aristotle makes the same remark, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.
[2376] Cuvier observes, that all fishes are found to have in the membranous labyrinth of the ear, bodies like stone, enclosed in a certain kind of gelatinous liquor. These bodies, however, he says, are not equally large in all kinds of fish. He says that it is found largest in the sciæna.
[2377] The Perca labrax of Linnæus. Called “loup,” or “wolf,” on the Mediterranean coasts of France, and “bar” on the shores of the ocean.
[2378] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, attributes to the chromis, Cuvier says, stones in the head, B. iv. c. 8, an acute hearing, B. iv. c. 9, the power of making a sort of grunting noise, and the habit of living gregariously, and depositing the eggs once a year, B. iv. c. 9; all which characteristics, he says, are found in the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the maigre of the French. In addition to this, Epicharmus, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., says that the chromis and the xiphias are, at the beginning of spring, the very best of fish; a quality which must be admitted to belong to the maigre, for its size and its excellent flavour. However, he says, seeing that the glaucus, which Aristotle has distinguished from the chromis, has a still stronger resemblance to the maigre, and that, as Belon informs us, the ombrine, or Sciæna cirrhosa, is still sometimes called at Marseilles the “chro,” or the “chrau,” and that, as Gyllius says, on the coast of Genoa it has the name of “chro,” it would not be improbable that this is really the chromis of the Greeks, as Belon supposes.
[2379] From σκιὰ, the Greek for “shadow;” which name, as Cuvier says, has been translated by the moderns by the word “ombre,” or “umbra.” But this name has been given at the present day to so many fish of various kinds, from the “ombra” of the Italians and the “maigre” of the French, the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the ombrine or Sciæna cirrhosa of Linnæus, to the ombre of Auvergne, the Salmo thymallus of Linnæus, and the ombre chevalier, the Salmo umbra of Linnæus, that this synonyme does not aid us in discovering its identity. Aristotle says nothing relative to his sciæna, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, except that it has stones in the head, a thing that is common to this with many other fish. Pliny, in copying this passage, preserves the Greek name; but Ovid, Columella, and Ausonius give it the name of “umbra;” the one, however, described by the first two is a sea-fish, while that of Ausonius is a fresh-water fish. Varro, who cites the name of umbra among those given to fish, adds that the species which bears it owes its name to its peculiar colour; and as Ovid calls it “liveus,” or “livid,” it may be presumed to have been of a dark colour. It is very possible, then, that it may have been the corvus marinus, or sea-crow, the Sciæna nigra of Linnæus.
[2380] Or pagrus. This passage is from Aristotle, Hist. Nat. B. viii. c. 19. Cuvier says that there are several names of fish, known in the Mediterranean at the present day, as being from the φάγρος of Aristotle, such as the pagri or pageau, the fragolino, &c. names of a fish of a red silvery hue, the Sparus erythrinus of Linnæus, his Sparus pagrus being another species. The modern Greeks also call it φάγρος, the best proof of its identity with the phagros of Aristotle, or pager or phagrus of Pliny. This phagrus, Cuvier says, was not improbably the same as the modern pagre, as their characteristics quite agree, so far as those of the ancient phagrus are described. It is of red colour, and we find Ovid (Halieut. l. 108,) speaking of the “rutilus pagur,” and it was, according to Aristotle, B. viii. c. 13, caught equally out at sea and near the shore, and had stones in the head, B. viii. c. 19, or, in other words, stony bodies of large size in the labyrinthine cavities of the ear. Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 185, says that the channe forms a delicate morsel for the pagrus, which shows that it was of considerable size; and several authors quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., give it the epithet of “great.” Hicesius says, in the same place, that it resembles the erythrus, the chromis, the anthias, and other fish of very different character among themselves; but it is only in relation to the flesh that he makes these comparisons, so that we are unable to come to any conclusion as to the form. But we find Numenius, also quoted by Athenæus, speaking of the φάγρον λοφίην, the “crested phagrus,” possibly in allusion to the height of the neck. The properties of its flesh are, if possible, still less characteristic. Hicesius says that it is of sweet flavour and nourishing, but rather astringent. Galen, however, says that it is hard, and difficult of digestion, when old. Archestratus looks upon its head as a delicacy, but thinks so little of the other parts, that they are not, in his opinion, worth carrying away. He was, however, well known to be much too refined in his notions of epicurism.