192 Rumination in Fish. 



me, Professor Owen makes the following* farther interesting 

 remarks, " Continued observations, under the rare and 

 difficult circumstances according to which they can be made, 

 have now convinced me that matters for mastication by tkroat- 

 chewers come from behind, as those by mouth-chewers from 

 before. And indeed when one came to consider how thoroughly 

 and regularly the mouth of a fish is washed out by the branchial 

 streams, there needs must be some special arrangement for the 

 masticating machinery in lithophagous and phytophagous fishes. 

 Consider what would be the consequence to the partially 

 broken up coral and pulp if retained at the back of the mouth 

 to be pounded piecemeal by the pharyngeals, the rush of two 

 diverging streams through that faucial area going on the 

 while like clockwork. No ! the food reduced if needful to a 

 size swallowable, is bolted, and the branchial way speedily 

 cleared. Then comes into play that anti-peristaltic rotation of 

 the short gullet, and bit by bit the contents are shed in a tergo 

 between the grinders till all is pulped." I have lately had an 

 opportunity of examining a carp, but the whole intestinal tract 

 was perfectly empty. This is probably the case with the 

 Ciipriniclce generally during the cold months. We must wait 

 for warm summer weather when we may be rewarded by 

 witnessing what Professor Owen has so minutely described, 

 There are good figures of the throat-teeth of the carp, tench, 

 roach, and barbel, in Yarrell's British Fishes. (Introd. p. 

 xx.) The worn appearance of the crowns of these teeth in the 

 carp are very striking, being, as Yarrell says, like u the molar 

 teeth in the hare." Besides the pair of pharyngeal jaws, there 

 is, in the carp and tench, a single occipital tooth, situated 

 between the pharyngeal pair, and upon which, as upon an 

 anvil, these last-named teeth appear to work. 



With regard to the fish known to the ancients by the name 

 of Scarus, although positive specific identification is certainly 

 not warranted by the accounts given of it, yet there is some 

 evidence in favour of its being a species of scarus still found 

 in the localities assigned to it in the writings of the ancients. 

 According to Aristotle, the scarus is remarkable for the form 

 of its teeth • it differs from all other fish in not having pointed 

 or shark-like teeth {Kap^apohovre^) , though Aristotle does not 

 tell us what sort of teeth it had. Its food consists of sea-weed. 

 He alludes to its ruminating propensities in two places \ and 

 the story descends, being narrated by CElian, Athenceus, Ovid, 

 Pliny, and others. According to Horapollo (ii. 109), the 

 ancient Egyptians delineated a scarus when they wished to 

 symbolize a man given to gluttony, " for this fish is the only 

 fish which ruminates and eats all the little fishes which fall in 

 its way." Oppian speaks of the scarus frequenting rocks 



