Even if we make great allowance for the wrath of the literary angler at the careless indifference with which these lines appear from his standpoint to be treated, the comments by the editors of Martial must be classed, in other respects also, as unsatisfactory and jejune. Paley and Stone, for instance, confine themselves to telling us that “scarus is some unknown but highly prized fish, which was caught by an inferior one used as bait.” That is all! nothing more! Their “unknown” stamps their indifference, or ichthyic ignorance.[349] Further, they never even hint that in this passage commentators have suggested two readings, _musco_—‘moss,’ and _musca_—‘fly.’ They simply adopt _musco_ without hinting at any difficulty arising from such adoption. Friedländer adopts _musca_. His only note consists of, “Vorato—musco wollte Brodæus lesen wegen der von Athenæus, VII., p. 319 f., aus Aristoteles angeführten Stelle[350] ...” The majority of editors[351] prefer, and probably rightly, the reading _musca_ for many reasons, the chief being that all the manuscripts of Martial without a single exception give _musca_. The upholders of _musco_, in their endeavour to enforce that mere conjecture by quoting from Athenæus, “The _Scarus_ flourishes on his food of seaweed,”[352] and supporting it by Pliny,[353] “The _Scarus_ is said to be the only fish that ruminates and is herbivorous” (and here note that as Pliny—like Athenæus—was taking his information from Arist., _N. H._, VIII. 2, he should have translated φυκίοις by _algis_, not by _herbis_), make the mistake of translating φυκίον by _muscus_. They ignore, moreover, Oppian, II. 649, φέρβονται δ’ ἢ χλωρὸν ἁλὸς μνίον, κ.τ.λ. Φυκίον is, while _muscus_ is not and never has been, _algæ_ or true seaweed; _muscus_ is ‘moss.’[354] Nor do these Olympian editors, who sit beside their proof-sheets, and whose notes are ever hurled far below them in the valley, condescend to explain to us poor gropers after light how moss to a sea-fish like the _Scarus_ can be of value as food. Most fishermen will tell you that fresh-water fish do eat moss; that they themselves have seen them in the act of eating such moss on the Thames; that roach in especial are particularly fond of this moss, which is used in summer months as a bait with great success; this moss they call by various names, ‘silk weed,’ ‘flannel weed,’ ‘blanket weed,’ and ‘crow-silk.’ Now all these so-called mosses are not mosses at all, but belong to the family _Confervæ_, which are fresh-water green _algæ_: so even in rivers we find that moss is not used as bait.[355]