12 THE NATURAL PIISTORY OF THE COMMON CRAYFISH. 



having a common English name for it abeady, should 

 naturalists call it by another aj^pellation derived from a 

 foreign tongue ? 



The origin of the common name, "crayfish," involves 

 some curious questions of etymology, and indeed, of his- 

 tory. It might readily be supposed that the word "cray" 

 had a meaning of its own, and qualified the substantive 

 "fish"— as "jelly" and "cod" in "jellyfish" and "codfish." 

 But this certainl}'- is not the case. The old English 

 method of writing the word was " crevis " or " crevice," 

 and the ' ' cray " is simply a phonetic spelling of the syl- 

 lable "ere," in which the "e" was formerly pronounced 

 as all the world, except ourselves, now pronounce that 

 vowel. While " fish " is the " vis " insensibly modified 

 to suit our knowledge of tlie thing as an aquatic 

 animal. 



Now "crevis" is clearly one of two things. Either it 

 is a modification of the French name " ecrevisse," or of 

 the Low Dutch name " crevik," b}^ which the crayfish is 

 known in these languages. The former derivation is that 

 usuall}' given, and, if it be correct, we must refer "cray- 

 fish" to the same category as "mutton," " beef," and 

 " pork/' all of which are French equivalents, introduced 

 by the Normans, for the " sheep's flesh," "ox flesh," and 

 "swine's flesh," of tlieir English subjects. In this case, 

 we should not have called a crayfish, a crayfish, except 

 for the Norman conquest. 



On the other hand, if " crevik" is the source of our 



