A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE SENSE OF HEARING IN 



FISHES. 



By G. H. PARKER. 



It was the opinion of many ancient writers that fishes could hear. 

 Thus Aristotle in his " History of Animals," Book IV., Chapter 8, 

 after having stated that fishes possess no evident organs of hearing, 

 declared that nevertheless they must hear, for they flee from loud 

 noises such as those made by the oars of a trireme. Aristotle 

 added further that fishermen were careful to avoid making a noise 

 with their oars or their nets when they perceived many fishes col- 

 lected together, and he concluded that it was evident from these 

 considerations that fishes have a sense of hearing. 



Among the Latins Pliny in his " Natural History," Book X., 

 Chapter 89, stated that though fishes were without ears, yet it was 

 quite certain that they could hear, for it was a well-known fact that 

 in some fish-ponds, the fishes were called to their food hy the clap- 

 ping of hands and that in the fish-ponds of the Emperor they came 

 each kind in response to its name. Thus, notwithstanding that these 

 older writers sometimes confused dolphins and other cetaceans with 

 true fishes, they had from unquestionable sources abundant evidence 

 upon which to base their opinions. 



The credit of having discovered, contrary to the belief of such 

 authorities as Aristotle and Pliny, that fishes really possess internal 

 ears, seems to rest with Casserius (1610). This discovery was 

 quite in keeping with the opinion of the times as may be inferred 

 from the conversation between Venator and Piscator in that delight- 

 ful repository of ancient fish lore, " The Complete Angler." In the 

 first edition of this classic (1653, P- 128) Walton makes Venator 

 put the question to him " But Master, do not Trouts see us in the 

 night? " And to this query Walton, in the guise of Piscator, replies, 

 " Yes, and hear, and smel too, both then and in the day time." 

 Whereupon he adds an account of an experiment by Sir Francis 



PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC, VOL. LVII, F, JUNE I4, 1918. 



69 



