I20 SEA FABLES EXPLAINED. 



the nature of the plumose appurtenances which, hanging 

 from the dead shells, were supposed to be the feathers of a 

 little bird within ; but it is difficult to understand how any 

 one could have seen in the natural occupant of the shell, 

 " the little bill, like that of a goose, the eyes, head, neck, 

 breast, wings, tail, and feet, like those of other water-fowl," 

 so precisely and categorically detailed by Sir Robert 

 Moray. As Pontoppidan, who denounced the whole story, 

 as being "without the least foundation," very truly says, 

 " One must take the force of imagination to help to make 

 it look so ! " 



As to the origin of the myth, I venture to differ entirely 

 from philologists who attribute it to " language," and " a 

 similarity of names," for, although, as Professor Max 

 Miiller observes in one of his lectures, "words without 

 definite meanings are at the bottom of nearly all our 

 philosophical and religious controversies," it certainly is not 

 applicable in this instance. Every quotation here given 

 shows that the mistake arose from the supposed resem- 

 blance of the plumes of the cirrhopod, and the feathers of 

 a bird, and the fallacious deductions derived therefrom. 

 The statements of Maier (p 112), Gerard (p. 106), Sir Robert 

 Moray (p. 1 10), &c., prove that this fanciful misconception 

 sprang from erroneous observation. The love of the marvel- 

 lous inherent in mankind, and especially prevalent in times 

 of ignorance and superstition, favoured its reception and 

 adoption, and I believe that it would have been as widely 

 circulated, and have met with equal credence, if the names 

 of the cirripede and of the goose that was supposed to be 

 its offspring had been far more dissimilar than, at first, they 

 really were. 



Setting aside several ingenious and far-fetched deriva- 

 tions that have been proposed, I think we may safely 



