OF THE EEL AND LAMPREY. 217 



in theni, and [by] following it through most of its stages, it has lain 

 almost unintelligible in the eel from the difficulty of finding them in 

 this state. It was not even known whether they were oviparous or 

 viviparous, and from this state of ignorance Sir John Hill 1 has declared 

 them viviparous ; probably from conceiving it [to be the] most probable 

 [mode], as their mode of propagation was so obscure as not then to 

 have been discovered. 



In my pursuits in comparative anatomy, especially [as to] the mode 

 of propagation in fishes, the eel was not forgotten ; and, as I found in 

 this fish parts situated similar to the roes in other fishes, although not 

 similar in the immediate appearance for propagation, yet being such as 

 demanded attention, [this] therefore made me more desirous of knowing 

 both the mode of propagation and the use of these parts in case they 

 might not be intended for such purposes. 



That I might be able to ascertain these facts, I got eels every month 

 in the year from the fishmonger with a view to catch them in the breed- 

 ing season, as also of every size, but I never could distinguish any dif- 

 ference in these parts in any of the months. However, I was told that 

 this was not a fair trial, the fishmongers often keeping them for months 

 in their troughs, in which time we cannot suppose they are going on 

 with this [the generative] process ; and to get eels from the river regu- 

 larly was not an easy matter. 



The part which I suspected to be the ovarium, when viewed with a 

 magnifier, appeared a little granulated like some fatty membranes ; and 

 there being in some of the amphibia, as the lizard, frog, &c, regularly 

 formed bodies composed of fat, I boiled this part to see if any oil could 

 be extracted; but it boiled away to a pulp without yielding any 2 . 

 Having failed in all my examinations on this part of the common eel, 

 and being in the island of Belleisle in the summer of 1761, where there 

 was a vast number of conger eels, I dissected some of them for their 

 anatomy, and observed they had the same parts with the common eel 

 which I had supposed to be the ovarium or roe 3 . 



1 [The pretensions of this writer to a scientific character are shown in the ' Cor- 

 respondence of Linnasus,' published by Sir J. E. Smith, P.L.S., 8vo. 2 vols. 1821. 

 Sir John Hill was patronized by Lord Bute, and among other works, including a 

 satire on the Royal Society, he compiled a ' Natural History of Animals,' fol. 

 1752-1773.] 



2 [If the fat-like fringe on the sides of the air-bladder and kidneys of the eel or 

 conger be examined during spring with a common pocket lens, or later, to about Sep- 

 tember, without the aid of a glass, the ova may be seen gradually acquiring their full 

 size ; in estuary eels taken in October and November, the ovaria are shrivelled and 

 empty. The shorten congers are procurable early in September, and are then 

 usually much darker than at other seasons.] 



3 [Hunt. Pre^p. No. 2660.] 



