164 THE SCARUS—“ FISHING PROHIBITED ” 
called the Mullet, when he can annex no other food, eats the 
sea-hare without fatal consequences, after which he “ tenerescit 
tantum et ingratior! viliorque fit.” These Mullet, sold by 
fraudulent fishermen as Scart, caused the indictment of Diphilus. 
Rondolet bears witness that near Massilia similar sales took 
place “ab imperitis piscatoribus,” but surely “too skilled” 
would be the better epithet. It is but fair to add that Athen., 
VIII. 51, asserts that the Scarus also eats the sea-hare. 
For this long discursus, the repute of the Scarus, the disputes 
of epicures and of doctors whether it be a dainty, or a sound 
diet, and the exclusive properties attributed to it by Greek and 
Roman writers must be my excuse. 
Summarising these last, we find that the Scarus, in addition 
to being the most passionate in his love 2, alone of all fishes, 
(A) Is not a cannibal, but a vegetarian (Pliny, IX. 29). 
Oppian claims for the mugi]—grey mullet—that it is the only 
non-carnivorous fish (II. 642-3). Couch gives as his considered 
opinion, ‘‘ Mugil capito is the only fish of which I am able to 
express my belief that it usually selects for its food nothing 
that has life.’”” Modern authorities have established that the 
scarus feeds on molluscs also. 
(B) Seems to ruminate or does ruminate.3 
(C) Belongs to, 
“The only kind that dare 
To form shrill sounds, and strike the trembling air,”’ 4 
(D) Sleeps at night.5 
“ Scarus alone their faded eyelids close 
In grateful intervals of soft repose,” 
(Oppian, II. 661 ff.) 
1 Mayhoff would read inertior. 
2 f£lian, I. 2. 
3 Aristotle and Pliny, supra; Oppian, I. 135-7; Elian, II. 54. 
4 Aristotle (according to Athen., VIII. 3) states that the scarus and sea- 
hog are the only fishes that have any kind of voice, but in reality he (IV. 9) 
mentions five others, among which is the cuckoo-fish, who ‘‘ whistle and 
grunt ’’ (see Pliny, XI. 112; Oppian, I. 134-5). Athenzus errs, for Aristotle 
(N. H., IV. 9, 8) asserts that the Dolphin when out of the water ‘‘ groans and 
cries’; while Pliny (IX. 7) says of the Dolphin, ‘‘ Pro voce gemitus humano 
similis.’ Aristotle expressly differentiates between the five mentioned fish 
and the Dolphin—for the former possess no lungs, windpipe, or pharynx, 
and so can produce no voice, only ‘‘ sound,’’ while ‘‘ the dolphin has a voice 
and therefore utters vocal and vowel sounds, for it is furnished witha lung and 
a windpipe.” 
5 Someone may throw at me the sentence of Seleucus of Tarsus, who in the 
