If _The Lady of the Waters_ translate correctly the ideogram of Nineveh, the term may have sprung from a temple to this reputed Fish Goddess standing in that city. But even if the existence of such a temple can be inferred, its original site probably lay in Sumerian Lagash, not in Nineveh. FOOTNOTES: [945] _Annals of the Kings of Assyria_, by Budge and King (1903), p. 138. ‘Dolphin’ is the translation of _Nakhiri_, doubtless from the same root, which in Arabic is _Nakhara_, to spout, and occurs in the same sense in Syriac and Ethiopic. In view of the evidence of Pliny and other authors as to the former existence of the whale in the Mediterranean, I suggested to Professor King an alternative rendering of _nakhiri_ as ‘whale,’ and he informed me he accepts my suggestion as the more probable of the two. [946] Another translation (_R. Asiatic Proc._, XIX. pp. 124-5) renders these lines “creatures of the Great Sea which the King of Egypt had sent as a gift, and entrusted to the care of men of his own country,” either as carriers or permanent attendants. But see p. 53 of the Introduction to _The Annals of the Kings of Assyria_, _op. cit._ Dr. St. Clair Tisdall writes: “If _Nam-su-hu_ (Budge and King’s translation) be right, it is evidently the Egyptian name ’_msuhu_ = crocodile, with the plural _Na_ prefixed. Egypt in Arabic is still _Mīsr_.” [947] _Op. cit._, Introduction, pp. 372 ff. [948] The Assyrians, probably from having no admixture of the softer Sumerian blood, from living in a less enervating climate, and from Hittite influence, stand out as more virile, fiercer fighters, and crueller foes than the Babylonians. [949] W. Hayes Ward, _op. cit._, p. 418, states the dog appears in cylinders very early—chiefly as guardian of the flock. Cf. Figures 391, 393, 394, 395. He is seen in the late Babylonian: cf. Figs. 549, 551, 552, and later still in hunting scenes, Figs. 630, 1064, 1076 and 1094, which last shows in a very spirited manner four dogs in a fight with two lions. The dog running away is fairly “making tracks!” [950] Cf. Tobit v. 16, and xi. 4. [951] Layard _Monuments of Nineveh_ (_op. cit._), vol. II. p. 438. [952] The identification, which is avowedly more of a philological than a scientifically zoological nature, is in the cases of Nos. 2 and 3 a “terminological inexactitude,” for as Dr. Boulenger’s lists show, neither the turbot nor the sole occur in the Persian Gulf. Cf. _Proc. Zoological Society_, 1887, p. 653; 1889, p. 236, and 1892, p. 134. [953] Monograph, _Kleine Beiträge zum assyrischen Lexicon_ (Helsingfors, 1912). [954] _Sumerian Grammar_ (London, 1917), p. 60. [955] _Proc. of Soc. of Biblical Archæology_ (London, May, 1918), p. 83.