( 128 ) 
other Marine Animal : for if we'll fuppofe RonJe* 
lettus faw what he chere defer ibes, and 'exprefled hit 
words according to what he faw, I think we cannot 
imagine thit he and I had the fame obje(ft before us^^ 
or the fame Idea's in our Thoughts ; and this wilJ ap- 
pear evident, by comparing his words with mine, which 
do not only difagree , but feem in many Particulars 
down -right Contradtdory to one another ; as where he 
fays of his Animal (Lib 15-° De Pifcibus , pag. 
419.) Ore carets whereas I fay, the mouth of mine was 
a i^ery large patulous Ofening for the Bulk of the Animal 
He fays, In medio latior eft ^ Ext remagractlefcunt^ Pu- 
dendt muliehris fpeciem referenSy whereas Uay, 'twas 
bigger at one end^ and went taper or gradually , lejfening 
towards the other \ he fays, in Dorfo tumores parvi emi^ 
nent verrucas Pifcatores noftri vocant, I am fure I could 
obferve none fuch, but fay, the Back was covered with a 
Jhort foft fort of down, in Colour ^ Texture and Suh ft ance 
like' that which grows on the Leaf of Tuflilago : ^ene-^ 
natum efte experti fumus, (ays he , whereas I found two 
of the Scolopendras I defcribed in the Stomach of aa 
Animal that had devoured them, and Digefted one as 
its natural Food and Suftenance ; from whence we may 
conclude, they are not Poyfonous ; and befides Ronde- 
letius his Icon agrees exadlly with his own Defcrip- 
tion , whereas it neither agrees with my Defcription 
nor my Figure. From all which F think 'tis very 
plain , Rondeletius his Phyjalus , and the Scolopendra 
Marina 1 Defcribed , are quite different Species of A- 
nimals. 
But I confeft Mr. Dale was thus far in the Right, th6 
he fiems not to have known it himftlf, that the Scolo" 
pendra Marina I mention, has been taken notice of by 
others, before I fpoke of it ; for upon further Enqui- 
ry, fince my Writing that Account, I meet in the' 
