[54] A Scolopendra, ten feet long, is at first rather startling, but on referring to Rondeletius's _Libri de piscibus Marinis_ (lib. xvi. p. 488), I find that under the name "Scolopendra" he includes at least three distinct forms--i., _S. terrestris_, a centipede; ii., _S. marina_, certain species of Nereidiform polychaet worms; iii., _Scolopendra cetacea_, regarded as a Cetacean and figured with a Cetacean blow-hole. With regard to this remarkable figure my friend, Dr. S. F. Harmer, has favoured me with the following note:--"In the account given Rondeletius is evidently writing from report; the figure is also no doubt borrowed, and may have been 'improved' when redrawn; it seems to me that it is based upon some kind of Tunny, although he figures a Tunny earlier in the book (lib. viii. p. 249). The idea of the lateral appendages might have been derived from the dorsal and ventral finlets of a Tunny; but the first four finlets on each side are imaginary structures, and in a wrong position. I can offer no opinion with regard to the nasal appendages." Jonston (_De piscibus_, p. 156, Tab. xliv.) also gives a similar figure of _Scolopendra_ _Cetacea_, which appears to be a further modification of Rondeletius's figure; here it has teeth, shown like those of the Sperm Whale, and an extra dorsal-fin is added; the number of lateral appendages is the same, and a column of water proceeding from the blow-hole is falling gracefully forward. It is worthy of notice that Rondeletius also figures the Saw-fish [Pristis] with a blow-hole. A pristes or serra [_written above_] saw fish[55] taken about Lynne co[=m]only mistaken for a [sha _crossed out_] sword fish & answers the figure in Rondeletius. [55] In the "Transactions of the Linnean Society," ii., p. 273, is an essay by Latham "On the various species of Sawfish," but he does not mention any British locality. So far as I am aware Browne's is the only record of the occurrence of this southern species in British waters, with the exception of a note in Fleming's "British Animals," p. 164, where it is stated on the authority of the late Dr. Walker's MS. "Adversaria" for 1769, that _Pristis antiquorum_ is "found sometimes in Loch Long," but Fleming adds that he has met with no other proof of its ever having visited the British shores. Browne mentions in his eighth letter to Merrett that he sends him a "figure in little" of a _Pristis_ which he received of a Yarmouth seaman, and is so precise in his statement that his fish was _Pristis serra_ (the _Pristis antiquorum_ of Cuvier), that his record cannot be disregarded. He specially guards against its being mistaken for the Sword-fish (_Xiphias gladius_), which has been taken on several occasions in our waters, and of which he gives some interesting particulars.