380 FISH—VIVARIA—FIRST POACHING 
This letter confirms what had previously been only sur- 
mised, viz. that the inhabitants of certain districts had enjoyed 
the exclusive right of fishing in their home waters. ‘‘It has 
already been inferred,’ King continues, “that the duty of 
repairing the banks of rivers and canals, and of clearing the 
waterways, fell upon the owners of property along the banks, 
and it was no doubt as a compensation for this enforced 
service (or corvée) that the fishing in these waters was preserved.” 
Mesopotamia and Armenia did not lack in fish of unusual, 
even fatal, properties. Thus of certain fishes near Babylon 
fBlian tells us} on the authority of Theophrastus, when the 
irrigation streams were without water, they remained in any 
small hole which was moist or held a little water, and were able to 
find a living in the herbage which grew in the dry channels, etc. 
Pliny (IX. 83) gives a somewhat similar story but a more detailed 
description of these fish, which ‘“ have heads like sea-frogs, the 
remaining parts like gudgeons, but the gills like other fish.” 
Emerging from their water holes, they travel on land for food, 
moving along with their fins, aided by a rapid movement of 
their tail. If pursued, they retreat to their holes and make a 
stand. 
He notices too the stay-at-homeness of the fish in the 
Tigris and of those in the lake Arethusa. Though the river 
flows in and out of the lake, the denizens of the one are never 
to be found in the other. We discern the reason for such 
estranged relations in his previous sentence, “ the waters of 
the lake support all weighty substances and exhale nitrous 
vapours.” 2 Ktesias mentions a spring in Armenia, the fishes 
of which are quite black and, if eaten, prove instantly fatal. 
The only spring of sweet-smelling water ‘“‘in toto orbe,’’ 
Chabura, lies in Mesopotamia. The reason (according to 
legend) for its possessing this unique property was because 
in it the Queen of Heaven, Juno, or presumably her Babylonian 
counterpart, was wont to bathe. But Pliny fails to indicate 
whether the unique scent was an effort of Nature to supply 
a bath meet for the Queen of Heaven, or was merely a 
1 N.A., V. 27. 2N. H., VI. 31. 
8 Ibsid., XXXI. 19. 4N. A, XXXI, 22. 
