The Reproductive Power of Eels. 95 
confirmation of the actual taking and hatching of the eggs 
under those conditions. These eggs, however, were never 
found in salt-water, nor, for the matter of that, anywhere 
else, and I too have not found them, and consider it possi- 
ble that eels are viviparous, and produce living young. Cer- 
tain it is that the oldest fishermen assert that they have 
never seen eggs in eels anywhere or at any season. But, 
unfortunately, fishermen, both the oldest and youngest, are 
like the rest of the world, and never seem to see anything, 
even when it is perched on the ends of their noses, if they 
did not expect to find it there. 
It will be of interest to cast a glance on the endeavors 
of the more distinguished naturalists to find the ovaries and 
the spermatic organs of the eel, and on some erroneous as- 
sertions with regard to this matter, and for this purpose I 
quote from the last Report of Professor Baird, United States 
Commissioner of Fisheries. 
Aristotle (fourth century before Christ), the greatest natu- 
ralist of antiquity, the founder of zoology, recognized the 
ovaries of the “grongo” (Conger vulgaris) by the cracking 
of eggs when placed over the fire, but maintained that the 
eel, notwithstanding that its ovaries resemble those of the 
“grango”’ in every respect, is born from worms produced 
by mud. 
Pliny (first century A. D.), who in great part, like a ma- 
jority of his compatriots, only copied Greek works, especial- 
ly those of Aristotle, differs from him as regards the repro- 
duction of the eel, maintaining that it rubs itself against rocks, 
and that from the fragments coming off during this rubbing 
process the young eels are born. 
Albertus Magnus (thirteenth century a. Dp.) accepts Pliny’s 
