SEA LAMPREY. 387 



water, its supposed marine practises were unknown or forgotten, 

 and it assumed names according to the likeness it was believed 

 to bear to some more familiarly-known fishes. Hay, in his 

 little work, "Nomenclator Classicus," very properly finds fault 

 with those English writers, especially the poets, who have 

 translated the Latin name of the fish Muroena by the English 

 term Lamprey, which John Jones, the translater of Oppian, 

 always does, as do others since his day, although these fishes 

 are different in every respect. Yet Bondeletius is sufficient 

 authority for saying that the Sea Lamprey was sometimes called 

 Murscna simply, or Murana jluviatilis — the Kiver Mursena; 

 but he distinguishes it by an anatomical difference in the 

 head from the Murrena of the sea, of which we have already 

 given an account; and, skilful as he was as a naturalist, he 

 thinks the comparison of one with the other not amiss. There 

 is some probability also in the opinion that the Lamprey is 

 mentioned by Ausonius under the name of Mustella in the 

 following verses. 



"All through the ponds of Ister's double name, 

 Frothing the surface the Mustella came; 

 Watched by observant eyes it holds its way, 

 And safely shelters in our favoured bay; 

 Bringing new riches to the wide Moselle; 

 And its bright beauties who can paint or tell? 

 On breadth of heavenly blue are dots of black, 

 Each circled yellow through the luscious track 

 Along the slippery surface of its back. 

 From head to vent it suits the nicest taste, 

 But all behind is dry, and thrown to waste." 



Cuvier is of opinion that the Mustella of Ausonius, here 

 described, is the Burbolt; but it appears a sufficient objection 

 to this, that the Burbolt never migrates to the salt water, as 

 the Mustella is represented to do; and yet that the name has 

 also been applied to the last-named fish is not only rendered 

 probable by the fact that it is still called Motella in some parts 

 of France, but it is countenanced even by Pliny, if we admit 

 an amendment of the ordinary text of this writer. He says 

 that the fish which is next in esteem (to the Scarus) for the 

 table is the Mustella; but in contradiction to Ausonius, only 

 for its liver; and further that those of the lake of Brigantia in 

 the middle of the Alps are rivals to those of the sea. But the 

 Burbolt cannot live in the sea. It has been suggested, therefore, 



