12 THE NAT^KAL HISTORY Oi' THE COMMON CRAYFISH. 



having a common English name for it already, should 

 naturalists call it by another appellation derived from a 

 foreign tongue ? 



The origin of the common name, "crayfish," involves 

 some curious questions of etymology, and indeed, of his- 

 tory. It might readily be supposed that the word "cray" 

 had a meaning of its own, and qualified the substantive 

 "fish"— as "jelly" and "cod" in "jellyfish" and "codfish." 

 But this certainly is not the case. The old English 

 method of writing the word was " crevis " or " ci'evice," 

 and the "cray" is simply a phonetic spelling of the syl- 

 lable " ere," in which the " e " was formerly pronounced 

 as all the world, except ourselves, now pronounce that 

 vowel. While " fish " is the " vis " insensibly modified 

 to suit our knowledge of the thing as an aquatic 

 animal. 



Now " crevis " is clearly one of two things. Either it 

 is a modification of the French name " ecrevisse," or of 

 the Low Dutch name " crevik," by which the crayfish is 

 known in these languages. The former derivation is that 

 usually given, and, if it be correct, we must refer "cray- 

 fish" to the same category as "mutton," "beef," and 

 " pork," all of which are French equivalents, introduced 

 by the Normans, for the " sheep's flesh," "ox. flesh," and 

 " swine's flesh," of their English subjects. In this ease, 

 we should not have called a crayfish, a crayfish, excei»t 

 for the Norman conquest. 



On the other hand, if " crevik" is the source of our 



