388 Dr. A. Giintlier on the History o/Echeneis. 



second century who mention the fish, and agree witli each other 

 in the principal points of its general form and qualities. Although 

 the organ of adhesion was unknown to them, they were better 

 informed than Pliny, describing the fish as brown, 1 foot long, 

 eel-like, with the mouth directed upwards. Oppian, however, 

 imagines the lower jaw to be formed in the shape of a hook, by 

 which the fish stops a vessel. 



Wotton (de Differentiis Animalium, p. 149) gives a short 

 abstract of what earlier writers have stated. 



Whilst the nature of the fish remained entirely unknown to 

 Bellonius (Echeneis s. Rcmora, p. 440), Rondelet appears to have 

 had a far more correct idea of it, and he endeavours to give a 

 natural explanation of the powers attributed to the fish. He 

 devotes a long chapter to it (lib. xv. c. 18. p. 436). We find 

 that the fish was called in Latin not only Remora (quia remo- 

 ratur naves), but nho Rejniiegium ; in Greek Echeneis and Nau- 

 crates, nrapa ro e%eiv koX Kparetv rrjv vavv. He clearly recognizes 

 the discrepancies in the accounts of the difi'erent authors, and 

 distinguishes (1) the fish of Aristotle; (2) those accounts from 

 which the Remora would appear to be a snail-like animal; and 

 (3) the fish of Oppian. Referring to Aristotle, he maintains that 

 the Remora is a true fish ; but, not knowing it by autopsy, he 

 comes to the conclusion, from Oppiau's account (and not without 

 reason), that it is a kind of Petromyzon^^, a form which was well 

 known to him. He does not maintain the assertion of the fishes 

 power of completely stopping a vessel, but states that, after a 

 long voyage, a vessel is covered with marine growths, its bottom 

 becoming soaked through, and therefore it is incapable of cut- 

 ting through the water with the same facility as at first. The 

 Remora likes to attach itself to such vessels ; and although it 

 is not the original cause of the slower course of the ship, it is 

 probable that the continual lateral movements of its body are 

 gradually communicated to the vessel itself, which then con- 

 siderably slackens in speed. 



Aldrovandi (iii. cap. 22. p. 335) copies Rondelet in the prin- 

 cipal points, but prefers to return to the ancient opinion of a 

 mysterious power inherent in the fish. He gives, however, so 

 accurate a figure of Echeneis naucrates, that the general external 

 characters of the genus appear to be fixed from the year 1649. 



Gesner (De Aquat. p. 410) and Jonston (Thaumatogr. lib. i. 

 tit. i. cap. 2. art. 4. tab. 4. fig. 3) reproduce the accounts of the 

 earlier writers, without contributing anything new to the know- 

 ledge of our fish ; the latter, however, gives a rough figure, 

 apparently taken from Echeneis naucrates. It is this species 

 also, in all probability, which we find figured by Marcgrave 

 * Cf. Artedi, Synon. p. 90. 



