AEISTOTLE S METHOD. 25 



for making the statement. The exception most likely to 

 come under his notice was the Viviparous Blenny (Zoarces 

 viviparus) , which has very small, delicate scales embedded 

 in its skin. Other viviparous fishes with conspicuous scales, 

 such as Sebastes norvegicus, found chiefly in Norwegian 

 waters, and the Surf-fishes (Embiotocidd) , found off the 

 Californian and Japanese coasts, were not likely to come 

 under his observation. 



As already stated, Aristotle should not be adversely criti 

 cized for making such statements, but there are many others 

 which were due to errors of observation. The conger has 

 four double gills on each side, and the parrot-wrasse has 

 three double gills and one single gill on each side, but 

 Aristotle says that each of these fishes has one double gill 

 and one single gill on each side.* Again, the swallow has a 

 very compact gizzard in the form of a thick, nearly circular 

 disc with well-rounded edges, and the gizzard of the sparrow 

 is also very compact, while its oesophagus is comparatively 

 large, for it is usually a quarter of an inch in diameter when 

 gently inflated, with a well-defined part about three-fifths of 

 an inch in diameter, serving as a crop. Aristotle says that 

 some birds, such as, for instance, the swallow and the spar 

 row, have neither an oesophagus nor a crop of large diameter, 

 but they have a long (paicp&amp;lt;x.v) gizzard.! The above statements 

 have been selected because they refer to fishes and birds 

 easily procurable, and to parts of these which Aristotle could 

 have easily examined. One other example, of a different 

 kind, will be given. Like nearly all mammals, the lion and 

 the wolf have seven cervical vertebrae, but Aristotle says that 

 each of these animals has but one bone in its neck, there being 

 no separate vertebrae. I It is very likely that, in a case such 

 as this, he accepted what had been told him by others. 



The defects thus illustrated, viz., insufficiency of obser 

 vations and want of a process of verification, explain to some 

 extent why Aristotle sometimes failed, but other causes may 

 be suggested. He attempted to do too much. In conse 

 quence of the wide range of his researches, not only in the 

 domain of Natural Science, but also in other branches of 

 knowledge, his work of observing, dissecting, and, to a 

 small extent, of experimenting, must have been carried out 

 only by very strenuous efforts. He allowed himself no time, 

 although he might have had the wish, to make sure of all 



* H, A. ii. c. 9, s. 4. f H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 16, 



J P. A. iv. c. 10, 686&amp;lt;i ; H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 1. 



