S C Q M B E R O I D IE. 



625 



some pure rays in the anterior part, and four rays 

 also in front of the anal ; the sides of the tail with a 

 keel, and the teeth numerous, but small. 



The pilot-fish is one which has been long cele- 

 brated. The Greeks, who were always ready to 

 throw in a little embellishment upon the very slightest 

 grounds, regarded it as a sacred fish, and one which 

 was of essential service to doubtful voyagers. Modern 

 science has, of course, bereaved the fish of much of its 

 reputed glory in this respect, by showing that the 

 ship is pilot to the fish, and not the fish to the ship ; 

 but even now the pilot-fish is looked upon with a 

 good deal of superstition. 



It follows sharks as well as ships, and for the same 

 reason, no doubt, in both cases, namely, for the 

 refuse tlAt it can pick up. The teeth of the shark 

 have a cutting or mangling structure, and thus por- 

 tions of its prey escape, which these comparatively 

 small, but active and voracious fishes, readily seize. 

 It appears, therefore, that the pilotage which this 

 fish gives to the shark is very much akin to the pro- 

 viding which it used to be said the jackall made for 

 the lion the hope of sharing in the capture made by 

 fche more powerful animals. The stories which are 

 told point, however, to something very different from 

 this, and, as they are told and reported by those who 

 are really the best authorities on the subject, we shall 

 mention at least one of them. The stories which are 

 told of the efforts made by these pilot-fishes to tempt 

 the shark to take the bait which is thrown out in order 

 to catch him, have some semblance of truth about 

 them, because they approach and hover about the 

 bait, though they are unable to take it on account of 

 its size ; but it must not be supposed that they in any 

 way tempt the shark, either to his destruction or for 

 their own personal advantage; and the last of these 

 is the only one for which there could be anything 

 like a rational ground, even supposing that the pilot- 

 fish were actually possessed of speculation, which it 

 evidently cannot be. 



But the opposite accounts, namely, those of the 

 pilot-fish attempting to keep the shark from the danger 

 of the hook, have more of romance in them, and are 

 sometimes told in a more circumstantial manner ; so 

 we shall quote one in the words of Colonel Hamilton 

 Smith, whom Cuvier calls ' tres-savant naturaliste." 

 It occurs in Griffith's Animal Kingdom, vol. x. p. 636, 

 and is in these words : " Captain Richards, R.N., 

 during his last station in the Mediterranean, saw, on 

 a fine day, a blue shark which followed the ship, 

 attracted perhaps by p. corpse, which had been com- 

 mitted to the waves. After some time, a shark hook, 

 baited with pork, was thrown out. The shark, 

 attended by four pilot-fish Scomber ductor, repeatedly 

 approached the bait ; and every time that, he did so, 

 one of the pilots, preceding him, was distinctly seen 

 from the topsail of the ship to run his snout against 

 the side of the shark's head, to turn it away. After 

 some further play, the fish swam off' in the wake of 

 the vessel, his dorsal fin being long distinctly visible 

 above the water. When he had gone, however, a 

 considerable distance, he suddenly turned round, 

 darted after the vessel, and, before the pilot-fish could 

 overtake him and interpose, snapped at the bait, and 

 was taken. In hoisting him up, one of the pilots 

 was observed to cling to his side until he was half 

 out of the water, when it fell off. All the pilot-fishes 

 then swam about a while, as if in search of their 

 friend, with every apparent mark of anxiety and 



NAT. HIST. VOL. III. 



distress, and afterwards darted suddenly down into 

 the depths of the sea. Colonel H. Smith has him- 

 self witnessed, with intense anxiety, an event in all 

 respects precisely similar." 



This story of "the friendship of the fishes" out- 

 does all that Canning ironically said of " the loves of 

 the triangles;" but we are constrained to suspect 

 that there are circumstances in the narration which 

 tend to invalidate the truth of it in the sober history 

 of nature, though it may be all very well as a sailor's 

 " yarn." In the first place, would a shark follow a ship 

 attracted by a corpse which was not in the ship, but 

 had been committed to the deep '? In the second 

 place, do sharks really follow ships, when there are 

 corpses on board, more than they do at other times? 

 and if so, by what particular organisation does a fish 

 in the water continue to nose out the particular 

 origin and direction of an effluvium, whatever that 

 effluvium may be, which affects the air from a vessel in 

 motion ? In the third place, how was it known that 

 the pilots would have interposed to prevent the shark 

 from taking the bait, when they did not so interpose? 

 And, in the fourth place, how far " down into the 

 depths of the sea" did the pilots go to spend the 

 time of their mourning for the loss of the shark ? 

 A satisfactory answer to these questions is the first 

 desideratum toward a fair understanding of the man- 

 ners and motives no, not motives, for motives it can 

 have none of the pilot-fish ; and when these have 

 been all answered in the most full and satisfactory 

 manner, it is only a beginning of the questions which 

 present themselves, each more eager for an answer 

 than another. These we cannot discuss. 



We must, however, quote a passage from Mr. 

 Yarrell illustrative of the partiality of the fish for 

 ships, though he avoids the grounds of this partiality. 

 " In the year 1831," says Mr. Y., " two specimens of 

 the pilot-fish were caught on the opposite side of the 

 British Channel; and more than one instance has 

 occurred of their following ships into Guernsey. A 

 few years since, a pair accompanied a ship from the 

 Mediterranean into Falmouth, and were both taken 

 in a net. In January, 1831, the Peru, Graham 

 master, put into Plymouth, on her voyage from 

 Alexandria to London, after a passage of eighty-two 

 days. About two days after she left Alexandria, 

 two pilot-fish, Gaslcrosteus duclor, made their appear- 

 ance alongside the vessel, were constantly seen near 

 her during the homeward voyage, and followed her 

 into Plymouth. After she had come to an anchor in 

 Cutwater, their attachment appeared to have in- 

 creased ; they kept constant guard to the vessel, and 

 made themselves so familiar, that one of them was 

 actually captured by a gentleman in a boat alongside, 

 but, by a strong effort, it escaped from his grasp, and 

 regained the water. After this the two fish separated ; 

 but they were both taken the same evening, and, 

 when dressed on the next day, were found to be 

 excellent eating. In October, 1833, nearly one hun- 

 dred pilot-fish accompanied a vessel from Sicily into 

 Cutwater, but they were not captured." 



Discounting all the romance which has been 

 coupled with the pilot-fish, there remains enough of 

 reality about it to entitle it to no small degree of 

 attention ; and though it would be perfectly ridicu- 

 lous to suppose that the fish Jias any attachment to 

 the ship, or to those who are on board, yet the fact 

 of a little fish following a vessel for more than two 

 thousand miles is a curious one. It is also a fish of 

 RR 



