like frogs on the land; and likewise a species found near Babylon, which, when the Euphrates runs low, leave the dry channels in search of food, "moving themselves along by means of their fins and tail." He proceeds to state that at Heraclea Pontica there are places in which fish are dug out of the earth, ([Greek: oryktoi tôn ichthyôn]), and he accounts for their being found under such circumstances by the subsidence of the rivers, "when the water being evaporated the fish gradually descend beneath the soil in search of moisture; and the surface becoming hard they are preserved in the damp clay below it, in a state of torpor, but are capable of vigorous movements when disturbed. In this manner, too," Theophrastus adds, "the buried fish propagate, leaving behind them their spawn, which becomes vivified on the return of the waters to their accustomed bed." This work of Theophrastus became the great authority for all subsequent writers on this question. ATHENÆUS quotes it[2], and adds the further testimony of POLYBIUS, that in Gallia Narbonensis fish are similarly dug out of the ground.[3] STRABO repeats the story[4], and one and all the Greek naturalists received the statement as founded on reliable authority. [Footnote 1: Lib. vi. ch, 15, 16, 17.] [Footnote 2: Lib. viii. ch. 2.] [Footnote 3: Ib. ch. 4.] [Footnote 4: Lib. iv. and xii.] Not so the Romans. LIVY mentions it as one of the prodigies which were to be "expiated," on the approach of a rupture with Macedon, that "in Gallico agro qua induceretur aratrum sub glebis pisces emersisse,"[1] thus taking it out of the category of natural occurrences. POMPONIUS MELA, obliged to notice the matter in his account of Narbon Gaul, accompanies it with the intimation that although asserted by both Greek and Roman authorities, the story was either a delusion or a fraud.[2] JUVENAL has a sneer for the rustic-- "miranti sub aratro Piscibus inventis."--_Sat_. xiii. 63. [Footnote 1: Lib. xlii. ch. 2.] [Footnote 2: Lib. ii ch, 5.] And SENECA, whilst he quotes Theophrastus, adds ironically, that now we must go to fish with a _hatchet_ instead of a hook; "non cum hamis, sed cum dolabra ire piscatum."[1] PLINY, who devotes the 35th chapter of his 9th book to this subject, uses the narrative of Theophrastus, but with obvious caution, and universally the Latin writers treated the story as a fable. [Footnote 1: _Nat. Quæst._ vii 16.] In later times the subject received more enlightened attention, and Beckmann, who in 1736 published his commentary on the collection [Greek: Peri Thaumasiôn akousmátôn], ascribed to Aristotle, has given a list of the authorities about his own times,--Georgius Agricola, Gesner, Rondelet, Dalechamp, Bomare, and Gronovius, who not only gave credence to the assertions of Theophrastus, but adduced modern instances in corroboration of his Indian authorities. * * * * * NOTE (C.) CEYLON FISHES. (_Memorandum, by Professor Huxley._)