[222] This is incorrect, unless he merely means ranged in one continuous line; and even then he is in error.
[223] See B. ix. c. 29. This is called the parrot-fish, from the resemblance of its upper and lower jaws to the beak of a parrot.
[224] They present this appearance from being worn away at the surface.
[225] Rondelet would read “gula,” the throat. This, though repudiated by Hardouin, is approved of by Cuvier, who justly looks upon the ordinary reading as an absurdity. Many fish, he says, and more especially the osseous ones, have teeth in the pharynx.
[226] There is always one fang, at least, ready to supply the place of the one in front, if lost by any accident.
[227] Like the jugglers of the East at the present day. But it is very doubtful whether the poison fang is in all instances previously extracted from the serpents which they handle.
[228] But the camel, as well as the lama, has an incisive bone, provided with an incisive tooth on each side, and has canine and molar teeth as well.
[229] If by this term he means teeth separated from each other, the assertion is incorrect, as in these animals we find the molars separated from the lower incisives by a very considerable space.
[230] Cuvier says, as far as the sea-urchin is concerned, very simply, and merely by looking at it, as its five teeth are very apparent.
[231] The incisors are in number, and very nearly in appearance, like those of man. The canines are different in shape, though similar in number. What he says about the elephant, is peculiar to that of India.