HEAEIA nEAEKAN 



135 



F1EAEKAN (continued}. 



opos do~f]\ovs yiveo~dai TOVS Trporepovs TOLS vo~Tpois. Ib. 597 b opvts aye- 

 Xato?, like the crane, the swan, and the little goose. Ib. ix. 10, 614 b 



01 de 7T\fKavS ol ev Tols TTora/zots yivo/Jifvoi KaTaTTLVOvo-t ras fJicyaXas Koy^as 

 Kal \eias' orav ' eV rco Trpo rrjs K0i\ias TOTTO) ~ Trex^cocrtj/, e^fjj.ova'LV, tva 

 XaaKovo-tov TO. Kpea l^aipovvrcs eo-dicaaiv. A similar account in Arist. 

 De Mirab. 14, 831 b ; Antig. Hist. Mirab. 41 (47) ; Ael. iii. 20, 23, v. 35 ; 

 Apostol. Cent. 15; Phile, De An. (9), 215; Dion. De Avib. ii. 6 

 Kai TIS KO\TTOS avrols ^r,pTTf]Tai Trpo TO>V crrepvatv, fls ov a.7rao~av TTJV 

 ecos (fj,(3d\\ovo~iv ) ovt TU>V KTGVWV ovre T>V o~K\r)pS)if 

 i, K. <r. X. : cf. Plin, x. 47 (66) faucibus ipsis inest alterius 

 uteri genus. That the Pelican can render up its food from its 

 ' pouch ' was much commented on by the ancients : hence the 

 Hebr. name kaath> lit. 'to vomit.' But the Pelican feeds on fish, 

 not (?) on shell-fish : and moreover P. crispus is common in Greece 

 and is not limited to the north. Hence various writers have doubted 

 the common interpretation, e. g. Gesner, Brandt (Descr. Animal. Rusti- 

 corum, 1836, p. 53), Van der Hoeven (Handb. d. Zool., ii. p. 396) and 

 especially Aubert and Wimmer (op. cit., i. p. 104), who suppose a 

 species of Heron to be meant. But the passage in Dionysius (s. v. 

 ireXeKiKos) is only applicable to the Pelican, and the latter is distin- 

 guished from cpudios in Ael. v. 35, Phile, c. ix, &c. ; the Heron and the 

 Pelican seem however to be confounded by Plutarch, 1. c. 



Cicero (De Nat. D. ii. (49) 124) repeats the story under the name 

 Platalea, and Plin. (x. (40) 56) under that of Plafea, names which rather 

 suggest the Spoonbill, to which the account may have been transferred, 

 the Pelican not occurring in Italy (Gallia hos septentrionali proxima 

 Oceano reddit, Plin. x. 47). 



The Pelican and its ' piety,' Ael. iii. 23. Cf. Horap. i. 54 7re\f<ava 8e 

 ypd(bovTS, avow re fjSr) KOL a(ppova o-r]fj.aivovo-iv' eVetS^ dwdpevos fv rots 

 v\lsrj\OTcpois TOTTOLS KaTaTideo~6ai TCI eavrov a'a, &o~rrfp Kai ra XotTra TO>V 

 TreTeijvcov, TOVTO ov Troie? aXXa yap Kal avopvas yrjv, exei KaTariderai TO. 

 yfvvo)fj,va' orrep cTTiyvovTes avdpconoi, ra> TOTTW /3oo? d(p68evfjia ^rjpov rrfpiTi- 

 6eao~iv } cp Kal Tvvp V7roftd\\ovo~i' deaad^icvos de 6 TreXeKaz/ TOV Kavrj/oj/, rot? 

 Idiois Trrepols fiovXofjifvos a7roo"]3ecrai ro TrCp, K T&V evavriwv KOTO, rrjv Kivr]o~iv 

 e^arrret alro. v<p' ov KaraKctiofjievos TO. eauroi) Trrepa evavhXrjTTTOTepos rols 

 yiverai' di' TJV alriav OVK evofjiiadr] eadifiv TOVS if peas avrov, enfiOfj 

 )$ vrrep TfKvatv noielTai TOV dy5)va' AlyvnTLWv oe ol Xoiyrot eo~diovo~i, 

 OTI pr) Kara vovv TTJV p-dxrjV) &o-7Tfp ol ^^i/aXcoTreKfS 1 , aXXa Kara 



6 TreXeKav Troielrat. This statement follows an account of the 

 parental affection of ggraX&ri^ ; Lauth (Sitzungsb. Bayer. Akad., 1876, 

 p. 105) shows that it is in part based on a confusion between two 

 Egyptian words, chemt, ' a pelican/ and chemi, ' ignorant.' The parental 

 affection of the Pelican is frequently referred to by the Fathers : cf. 



