It appears from Dioscorides that the dipsas was also sometimes called prester and causon. (vi.) See also Ælian (H. A. vi, 51.) Lucian and Isidorus, however, make a distinction between the dipsas and prester. Lucian says that it resembles the viper _de dipsadibus_. In fact the dipsas seems to have belonged to the viper kind. (See Bochart, Hieroz. ii, 367.) Galen states that he was informed by the Marsi, who made a living in Rome by dealing in serpents, that the dipsades were not a peculiar species of serpents, but a variety of the viper found on the sea-shores of Africa. (De Simpl. x.) Isidorus thus defines them: “_Hæmorrhois_ aspis nuncupatur, eo quod sanguinem sudet qui ab eo morsus fuerit: ita ut dissolutis venis, quicquid vitæ est per sanguinem evocat.” “_Dipsas_ genus est aspidis quæ Latine _situla_ quia quem memorderit siti perit.” (Orig. xii, 4.) The effects produced upon the system by the sting of the dipsas seem to have been of a highly inflammatory nature. According to Nicander, it kindles a flame in the heart, the lips become parched, and the person is seized with an unquenchable thirst. These symptoms are strongly portrayed by Lucan: “Ecce subit virus tacitum, carpitque medullas Ignis edax, calidâque accendit viscera tabe. Ebibit humorem circum vitalia fusum Pestis, et in sicco linguam torrere palato Cæpit.... Ille vel in Tanaim missus, Rhodanumque, Padumque, Arderet, Nilumque bibens per rura vagantem. Accessit morti Libye, _factique_[1] minorem Famam Dipsas habet terris adjuta perastis.” _Pharsal._ ix, 754. [1] Sic lege non _factiq_. The Arabians give a similar description of its effects. Haly Abbas says, that it occasions great heat and burning. Dioscorides treats the wounds of the dipsas and hæmorrhus upon general principles, namely, by the external application of cauteries and cataplasms; and the internal administration of wine and acrid food. Actuarius, in like manner, recommends undiluted wine and acrid food, and also directs us to amputate the part, or apply acrid cataplasms according to the degree of danger. Most of the ancient authorities concur in recommending the theriac; for an account of the modus operandi of which in this case, see Alexander Aphrodisiensis (Prob. i, 152.) We may mention that, after considering the descriptions given by Nicander, his commentator Eutecnius, Galen, Actuarius, and Avicenna, we are disposed to think that the text of our author at the beginning of this section must be corrupt; but we have not ventured to deviate from it, as we could not hit upon a conjectural emendation to satisfy us. None of the others mention contractions of the interstices or porous parts of the body, and all state that there is a discharge of blood from the pores of the skin. Now it is not probable that our author should have omitted a symptom so striking as this cutaneous hemorrhage, and substituted one which the others take no notice of.