274 Mr. E. Vs\ Ou(1<t,m- on the 



in the southern part Kied." The latter names arc, of course, 

 variations of tliose noted above. Dr. Blake has not been 

 abl(^ to throw any \\^\\\. on the word Delka. 



From all this we see that, in the near East wliere changes 

 take place slowly, Eel)eneis was still called "louse" some 

 two thousand years after Aristotle. Wliih^ to-day in our 

 own watersj as well as in most tropical seas, there is a certain 

 small Echeneid fish which Gill (1862) has named Phthier- 

 ichtltys /'meatus, the striped louse-fish. 



To return now to Prof. Tliompson's "tiny fish whose 

 habitat is in the vicinity of rocks." It seems to nie that 

 this fish cannot possibly be an Echeueis. The lilcheneis is 

 not a " tiny '^ fish, since the adult forms generally range 

 in length from ten inches to three feet ; likewise, so far as 

 is known to naturalists, it does not dwell among rocks. In 

 fish literature of the medieval and renaissance times, how- 

 ever, we (io frequently nin across references to Echeueis as 

 a dweller among rocks, but I take these accounts to be 

 merely echoes of Aristotle, since they are in other respects 

 mere copies of preceding writers. Furthermore, this fish is 

 said to have feet or, at any rate, fins re-^embling such organs. 

 To the present writer there is no doubt that the fish here 

 referred to is a goby, for gobies are small fish, are found in 

 or near rocks, and have their forwardly-placed pelvic fins 

 transformed into hand-like or sucker-like prehensile organs^. 



The Myth or the Ship-holdek. 



It will be remembered that Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) calls 

 our fish E(;heneis, ship-holder, but that he nowhere refers 

 to the miraculous power alluded to by other but later writers. 

 So it is doubtful whether he knew of these alleged powers, 

 bid if that be true lohy should he have named it ship-holder? 

 His words are " which some call the Echeueis or ' sliip- 

 holder,' ' and he is evidently (juoting some previous writer, 

 or givitig the name in common or everyday use. One thing 

 is clear, i. e. he is not the originator of the term, nor is it 

 very evident that he knew the fish by personal observation. 



Before bringing to the attention of the reader the 

 various stories ascribing miraculous powers to our fishes, 



* Since writing the above 1 have found that Lowe, so Ions' ago as 

 1>'4.3, expres.sed the belief that Ari-stotle's Echeneis was a blenny or a 

 jroby or a Chironecte^ and that the doljthin'w louse was an lOcheneis. 

 Un both of these points Giinther (1800, J 880) likewise is in agreement 

 witli the author of the ' llicitory of the Fishes of Madeira.' Day 

 (1880-84) also has briefly expressed his belief in this identification. 



