10 



(litioii into Egypt, there is an elaborate hiatory of the Crocodile, and 

 which might be entitled, A Defence of the Errors of Herodotus; 

 by GeoilVoy St. Hilaire, naturalist to the expedition. It is doubtful whe- 

 ther any of the sara/js of the expedition saw or examined a Crocodile 

 in Egypt. Certain it is that they have added nothing original to its 

 natur^Iil history. St. Hilaire appears to have picked up all his informa- 

 tion at the fisheries, from people more likely to deceive him than other- 



wise. 



This able physiologist, lately numbered with the mighty dead, may 

 have excelled his predecessors in certain branches of natural history, 

 especially that portion so peculiarly his own, relating to Monstrosity, or 

 the deviations of nature in the animal kingdom, which he has reduced, in 

 a great degree, to order, regularity and harmony. With all his reverence 

 for Herodotus, he sometimes differs from the old Greek, but never when 

 the latter is wrong, and nearly always when he is right. Herodotus says, 

 the Crocodile is truly amphibious ; no, says St. Hilaire, not " lui verl- 

 tabic amphibie.'' And how does the French Herodotus prove this? 

 Answer, ye who import facts, philosophy, and logic from Paris — the 

 modern Athens ! The Crocodile is not a true amphibium. Hence, 

 says he, it is in a false position among animals ! It is unsuited by nature 

 either to live in the air or in the water ! Plence, it is never satisfied, 

 and is always restless ; and this, says the great naturalist of the expe- 

 dition, is the reason why the Crocodile is always ferocious, always cruel! 

 And this is the argument of one of the principal sacans, whose works, 

 otherwise very learned and valuable, have on the title pages the folloAv- 

 ing words : " Public par les ordres de sa Majesty VEmperear Napoleon, 



Le Grand.^' 



Herodotus satisfied St. Hilaire, and St. Hilaire has satisfied the later 

 naturalists, who continue to copy the blunders of the former and the latter, 

 occasionally adding some on their own account, as will be seen hereafter. 

 These errors have increased, are increasing, and ought to be checked, 

 or rather, consigned to oblivion. 



Herodotus declared the Crocodile could move the upper jaw only. 

 Pliny copied the statement. " The Crocodile only moveth the upper jaw 

 or mandible, wherewith he biteth hard. (Holland's Pliny b. Vllf.) ^ St. 

 Hilaire is much embarrassed with this statement, which he does not fully 

 admit, and which he tries to explain in a very unsatisfactory way. 



Herodotus denied a tongue to the Crocodile. Pliny says, " the river 

 Nilus nourishes the Crocodile, a venomous creature, as dangerous upon 

 water as upon land. This beast alone, of all that keep the land, hath no 

 use of a tongue — iinuni hoc animal terrestre lingua', usu caret. (Lib. VIII). 

 Scarcely dissenting from Herodotus, St. Hilaire says that the Crocodile 

 seems to have no tongue. The Professor of Natural History to the Royal 

 College of Henry IV, H. Milne Edwards, in his new work Elem^ns de 

 la Zoologie, says that the tongue is indistinct — "pew distincte /" 



The tongue at its tip, including its outer third with its frenum is pale, 

 thin, flabl^y, wrinkled and adherent underneath, along its whole width, 

 appearing to have but little motion. It is truly tongue-tied. The middle 

 third becomes massive, and begins to assume a roseate hue. The base 

 or inner third is enormously developed, being thick, wide and strong, 

 filling the mouth, and being moveable upward and backward. When 



