314 SEA FABLES EXPLAINED. 



philologists who attribute it entirely to " language," " the 

 power of popular etymology," and " a similarity of names ;" 

 for, although, as Professor Max Miiller truly observes in one 

 of his lectures, " words without definite meanings are at the 

 bottom of nearly all our philosophical and religious con- 

 troversies," it certainly is not applicable in this instance. 

 Every quotation here given shows that the mistake arose 

 from the supposed resemblance of the plumes of the 

 cirrhopod, and the feathers of a bird, and the fallacious 

 deductions derived therefrom. The statements of Gerard 

 (p. 298), Maier (p. 306), Sir Robert Moray (p. 304), &c., 

 prove that this fanciful misconception sprang from errone- 

 ous observation. The love of the marvellous inherent in 

 mankind, and especially prevalent in times of ignorance 

 and superstition, favoured its reception and adoption, and I 

 believe that it would have been as widely circulated, and 

 have met with equal credence, if the names of the cirripede 

 and of the goose that was supposed to be its offspring had 

 been far more dissimilar than, at first, they really were. 

 For this is not the only instance of a downy substance 

 found upon a tree or plant having given rise to a report 

 that the animal whose covering it resembled was itself of 

 vegetable growth. The equally absurd belief that lambs 

 grew on trees in Tartary was curiously analogous to it. 

 The story of " the Scythian Lamb " is, however, too long 

 to be introduced parenthetically here ; therefore, although 

 it has an important bearing on the origin and acceptance 

 of such fictions, I can only cursorily refer to it, for it is not 

 a Fable of the Sea. 



Setting aside several ingenious and far-fetched deriva- 

 tions that have been proposed, I think we may safely 

 regard the word " barnacle," as applied to the cirrhopod 



