8 
NATURE NOTES 
notorious fishes’ nests are those which have been reported 
from time to time from the gulf-weed of the mid-Atlantic 
(Sargasso Sea), and which are attributed to the curious little 
Pterophryne histrio — A ntennarius marmoratus, a well-known member 
of the gulf-weed fauna. These nests and other similar masses 
of weed and clusters of eggs are held together by vast quantities 
of threads. The threads, however, belong to the eggs, and thus 
are in no way comparable with the genuine spinning-work of 
the nests of the males of sticklebacks. 
H. Wallis Kew, F.Z.S. 
IMAGINATIVE NATURAL HISTORY. 
JPJgJBHERE is a work well known to the clerical readers of 
Nature Notes, Cruden’s “ Concordance to the Bible,” 
the first edition of which was published in 1737. Under 
more than one head we find some remarkable state- 
ments. Thus, as to the “ Unicorn,” he says, “ It is much 
disputed among the learned, whether there be, or ever was, 
such a creature as we call the unicorn.” Then he considers, 
much as Canon Tristram does (“ Natural History of the Bible,” 
suh. voc.) what animal may be meant by the Hebrew Reem ; but he 
fails to notice that there is no single place in the Bible which 
implies or suggests that the Reem had but one horn ; and 
that one passage (in Deut. xxxiii.) implies the contrary. The 
literal translation here is, “ Horns of a Reem (are) his horns.” 
The notion of a one-horned animal apparently comes from the 
Septuagint, which has here the self-contradictory translation, 
“ Horns of a Monoceros.” Mr. Cruden adds, “ It is said to have 
but one horn, growing out of its forehead between its eyelids, 
but as hard as iron.” The Authorised Version avoids the con- 
tradiction of the Septuagint by an unwarrantable variation from 
the original, writing “unicorns” (with “Hebrew, an unicorn" in 
the margin). From the Revised Version, it is needless to say, 
the “ unicorn ” has finally disappeared. 
Under the word “ Dragon ” Mr. Cruden supplies the follow- 
ing information. “ As to the dragons which are talked of, and 
are often mentioned in books, they are for the most part only 
old serpents grown with age to a prodigious size. Some are 
described with wings, feet, claws, crests, and heads of different 
figures. There is no question but there are winged serpents. 
. . Real dragons, by Solinus’s account of them, have a small 
mouth, and cannot bile; or if they do, their biting is not veno- 
mous. The Egyptians call them good geniuses, and keep them 
tame in their houses, &c., &c.” 
It would be interesting, if it were possible, to trace the origin 
of the belief in the existence of dragons, as popularly conceived. 
1 suppose the Chinese have believed in them from very early 
