412 OBIGINAL AHTICLE3. 



tion, though I do not remember that Aristotle draws tliis compari- 

 son in their case ; though their x*/-^"' are in every sense to them 

 avTi ytipCjv TrpoQ to \afte~iv ical KaTaaj^^elv. 



I must not omit to notice another rendering ^-hich, though not 

 mentioned in the 'Eemarks,' was condemned by a writer in the 

 Saturday Review, when Mr. Cresswell's recent translation was cri- 

 ticised ; the rendering in question was that of Aristotle's octtovv 

 Trpoc uKuvdav by " a bone when compared with a spine." " Tliere is 

 no analogy," it was said, " between a bone and a spine." I confess 

 that my idea of ' spine ' was that of a ' spinous bone ' of a fish, and 

 that the Greek aKavQa had this meaning rather than that of " a back 

 bone," or " spinal column." I was in error, however, and so was 

 the writer in the Saturday Review, as I shall demonstrate. The 

 Grreek uKavda does properly denote the backbone of a fish (or a ser- 

 pent), and not an isolated spinous bone. I have referred to various 

 passages in Greek authors where the word occurs, and find the above 

 statement is correct ; but we must confine our attention to Aristotle, 

 who says (iii. 7. § 6), ra 2' woTOKOvvra atcavBav t'x^i, >/ i-ffTW &Girep toIq 

 rerpairocny i/ paj^ic, — " oviparous fish have a sjoinal column like the 

 backbone of quadrupeds," i.e. they have an osseous vertebral 

 column (Teleostia), and not a cartilaginous one like the viviparous 

 fish {Selachia) ; the small disconnected bones of fish (Kara riiv o-ap/ca 

 Ktyjii)picfiiiva) are called aKavdLa ; now, in order to express the analogy, 

 we must understand oaTow to denote not a disconnected bone, (in- 

 deed Aristotle says the bones depend on one bone and are connected, 

 there is no such thing as a separate bone (iii. 7. § 1,) but the con- 

 nected series of vertebrae which form the spinal column, or baclcbone. 

 Aristotle draws the analogy from living animals, and the comparison 

 lies between the whole vertebral column, and not any separate bone, 

 and oarovv must be imderstood in this sense, in order to render the 

 analogy intelligible and the translation accurate.* 



As to the difficulty attending the satisfactory solution of what the 

 u.Ka\r](pr] denotes, I have to observe that I am only one amongst many 

 who have been unable to arrive at the conclusion that some Actinia 

 is always denoted, and never a Medusa. Over the same " stumbHng- 

 block" even Cuvier tripped. As to the quotation from Archestratus, 

 it merely proves that the Acalepha; he was speaking of were Actiniae, 

 which nobody ever denied ; but it does not prove that the Acalepha? 

 of Aristotle and other Greek and Latin writers can never denote any 

 of the Medusfe. The uniform manner in which ancient authors speak 

 of the stinging properties of the animal, and the very etymology of 

 the term, may well incline us to believe that in some instances the 

 Medusa) must be intended, for stinging properties, as far as relates 



* Sec also Poster. Analyt. ii. 14, where Aristotle mentions the analogy between 

 oOTOvv, uKavda and the ai'j-n-eiov, "bone of the cuttle-fish." 



L 



