Sphyroena barracuda; its Morphology, Habits, and History. 83 



2 had 25. The smallest had pointed tails, i. e., had the central caudal 

 rays longest and all had tails more or less plumose like that of the lost 

 specimen above referred to. Presumably some of these were taken 

 from barracudas. According to Jordan and Evermann they fall into 

 the species E. naucrates (xxii to xxviii lamellae), or to E. naucratoides 

 (xx to XXI lamellae) . At any rate, none of these can be identical with 

 Poey's E. sphyrcenarum, which had only 10 lamellae. Gill (1862), in 

 his criticism of Poey's identifications, calls this fish Phthierichthys 

 lineatus, the striped louse-fish. Jordan and Evermann (1898) follow 

 Gill, and note that this little sucker-fish is found attached to barra- 

 cudas. This, however, is probably an echo of Poey. At any rate, the 

 point as to whether or not the big barracuda is the sole host of this 

 particular sucker-fish is worthy of further investigation. 



USE OF THE BARRACUDA AS FOOD AND POISONING RESULTING 



THEREFROM. 



There is a long-standing prejudice against the use of Sphyrcena as 

 food. Salviani, the Roman physician and student of fishes, says in his 

 book pubHshed at Rome in 1554, that ''At Rome they are justly held 

 to be common or cheap fish, nor do they have any proper fashion or 

 mode of rendering them savory." Cuvier and Valenciennes, in refer- 

 ring to Salviani's statement, say that other writers, presumably con- 

 temporary, accord it a comparison with the haddock, everywhere 

 esteemed as food; and that still others say that its flesh is light, friable, 

 and of good flavor. Rondelet (1558) likewise testifies that its flesh is 

 white and pleasant to the taste. 



With regard to the use of the West Indian barracuda as food, there 

 is likewise a widespread and long-standing prejudice based on centu- 

 ries-old allegations of its poisonous qualities. This is such an interest- 

 ing and important point that it will be taken up in detail and an effort 

 made to get at the truth and its explanation. This belief, so far as the 

 writer knows, was first noted by Du Tertre. He writes as early as 

 1667 that the flesh is like that of the pike, but dangerous to eat since it 

 is sometimes poisonous. He then tells us that to determine whether 

 it is hurtful it is necessary to examine the teeth and liver. If the for- 

 mer are white and the liver sweet-tasting, it may be eaten with impu- 

 nity ; but if the teeth are black or the liver bitter or harsh, it " ought no 

 more be eaten than arsenic. " As an explanation of the origin of the 

 poison, he says that in the West Indies in his day it was thought to be 

 due to the fact that the fish eats the fruits of the very poisonous man- 

 chineel tree which have fallen in the water. That this explanation 

 has persisted we will see later. And since this explanation of the 

 poisonous quality of the flesh of the barracuda is repeatedly offered, 

 the following interesting corroboratory note seems worth gi\'ing. 



