440 PARENTAL CARE AMONG FRESH-WATER FISHES. 



In this long account, however, no indication was given of any 

 structural differences between the Grecian and German fishes, and 

 consequently for half a century the species has been ignored by Euro- 

 pean naturalists. Indeed, in the latest English work on fishes (The 

 Cambridge Natural History, Vol. VII, p. 593) the great ichthyolo- 

 gist. Dr. George Boulenger, expressly affirms that the " only Euro- 

 pean representative of the family," Silurida^, is. the Silurus glanis. 

 Nevertheless, in 1890, in response to the i^resent writer's demand for 

 information, Samuel E. Garman published a description of the 

 S25ecimens collected and commented on in 1856, and called the species 

 ''^ Sill fines {Pamsihrnis) Aristotelis.'''' It appears that "from the 

 young of S. glanis L. of equal length, they are readily distinguished 

 by the possession of four barbels instead of six," as well as " by the 

 difference in shape of those on the maxillaries — they being shorter, 

 less compressed, and more threadlike, by the wide separation in the 

 middle of the band of vomerine teeth, by a larger eye, by a greater 

 slope to the sides of the head, by a smaller dorsal, by the smaller 

 number of rays in the anal, and by the markings." The largest of 

 Mr. Garman's specimens was " less than 9 inches in length." All 

 these characters the present writer has been able to confirm. Further- 

 more, the snout is more convex in front than in the Wels, the chin 

 barbels further from the symphysis than the foremost ones of the 

 Wels, and the opercle is smaller and especially shorter. Such char- 

 acters evidently indicate sjiocific differences from the central Euro- 

 pean fish. Had Agassiz (mly added to his account one word, four- 

 harheled., Felton would have been justified in his exclamation, made 

 after the connnunication of Agassiz: 



It is a very striking fact, that the lish in (inestion should, so many centuries 

 after the death of Aristotle, have come from the Aclielous across the Atlantic to 

 this country, to furnish our associate with a commentary on the great phi- 

 losopher, and to vindicate his accuracy as an observer against the criticism 

 even of a Cuvier. 



The single word " four-l)arl)eled " would not only have demon- 

 strated (accuracy being conceded) that the Glanis was distinct from 

 the Silurus, but would have suggested to the well-informed ichthy- 

 ologist that its affinities might be with certain eastern species rather 

 than with the northern. The Glanis is, indeed, but distantly related 

 to the Wels of the north and is a near relative of several eastern 

 species. It is, in fact, the offspring of a successful invasion from 

 Persiawards and the Orient. Doubtless the renowned ichthyologist 

 appreciated and intended to have made known these facts, but jiost- 

 ponement included non-performance. 



The history of the glanis is unique in the annals of ichthyology. 

 A more detailed account of its habits was given than of any 

 other fish by the greatest of ancient scientific authors, but the fish 



