Ceylon; an Account of the Island Physical, Historical, and Topographical with Notices of Its Natural History Part 31

Dr. Buist, after enumerating cases in which fishes were said to have been thrown out from volcanoes in South America and precipitated from clouds in various parts of the world, adduces the following instances of similar occurrences in India. "In 1824," he says, "fishes fell at Meerut, on the men of Her Majesty's 14th Regiment, then out at drill, and were caught in numbers. In July, 1826, live fish were seen to fall on the gra.s.s at Moradabad during a storm. They were the common cyprinus, so prevalent in our Indian waters. On the 19th of February, 1830, at noon, a heavy fall of fish occurred at the Nokulhatty factory, in the Daccah zillah; depositions on the subject were obtained from nine different parties. The fish were all dead; most of them were large: some were fresh, others were rotten and mutilated. They were seen at first in the sky, like a flock of birds, descending rapidly to the ground; there was rain drizzling, but no storm. On the 16th and 17th of May, 1833, a fall of fish occurred in the zillah of Futtehpoor, about three miles north of the Jumna, after a violent storm of wind and rain. The fish were from a pound and a half to three pounds in weight, and of the same species as those found in the tanks in the neighbourhood. They were all dead and dry. A fall of fish occurred at Allahabad, during a storm in May, 1835; they were of the chowla species, and were found dead and dry after the storm had pa.s.sed over the district. On the 20th of September, 1839, after a smart shower of rain, a quant.i.ty of live fish, about three inches in length and all of the same kind, fell at the Sunderbunds, about twenty miles south of Calcutta. On this occasion it was remarked that the fish did not fall here and there irregularly over the ground, but in a continuous straight line, not more than a span in breadth. The vast mult.i.tudes of fish, with which the low grounds round Bombay are covered, about a week or ten days after the first burst of the monsoon, appear to be derived from the adjoining pools or rivulets and not to descend from the sky. They are not, so far as I know, found in the higher parts of the island. I have never seen them, though I have watched carefully, in casks collecting water from the roofs of buildings, or heard of them on the decks or awnings of vessels in the harbour, where they must have appeared had they descended from the sky.

One of the most remarkable phenomena of this kind occurred during a tremendous deluge of rain at Kattywar, on the 25th of July, 1850, when the ground around Rajkote was found literally covered with fish; some of them were found on the tops of haystacks, where probably they had been drifted by the storm. In the course of twenty-four successive hours twenty-seven inches of rain fell, thirty-five fell in twenty-six hours, seven inches within one hour and a half, being the heaviest fall on record. At Poonah, on the 3rd of August, 1852, after a very heavy fall of rain, mult.i.tudes of fish were caught on the ground in the cantonments, full half a mile from the nearest stream. If showers of fish are to be explained on the a.s.sumption that they are carried up by squalls or violent winds, from rivers or s.p.a.ces of water not far away from where they fall, it would be nothing wonderful were they seen to descend from the air during the furious squalls which occasionally occur in June."

NOTE (B.)

MIGRATION OF FISHES OVER LAND.

_Opinions of the Greeks and Romans_.

It is an ill.u.s.tration of the eagerness with which, after the expedition of Alexander the Great, particulars connected with the natural history of India were sought for and arranged by the Greeks, that in the works both of ARISTOTLE and THEOPHRASTUS the facts are recorded of the fishes in the Indian rivers migrating in search of water, of their burying themselves in the mud on its failure, of their being dug out thence alive during the dry season, and of their spontaneous reappearance on the return of the rains. The earliest notice is in the treatise of ARISTOTLE _De Respiratione_, chap. ix., who mentions the strange discovery of living fish found beneath the surface of the soil, [Greek: ton ichthuon oi polloi zosin en te ge, akinetizontes mentoi, kai euriskontai oruttomenoi]; and in his History of Animals he conjectures that in ponds periodically dried the ova of the fish so buried become vivified at the change of the season.[1] HERODOTUS had previously hazarded a similar theory to account for the sudden appearance of fry in the Egyptian marshes on the rising of the Nile; but the cases are not parallel. THEOPHRASTUS, the friend and pupil of Aristotle, gave importance to the subject by devoting to it his essay [Greek: Peri tes ton ichthyon en zero diamones], _De Piscibus in sicco degentibus_. In this, after adverting to the fish called _exocoetus_, from its habit of going on sh.o.r.e to sleep, [Greek: apo tes koites], he instances the small fish ([Greek: ichthydia]), which leave the rivers of India to wander like frogs on the land; and likewise a species found near Babylon, which, when the Euphrates runs low, leave the dry channels in search of food, "moving themselves along by means of their fins and tail." He proceeds to state that at Heraclea Pontica there are places in which fish are dug out of the earth, ([Greek: oryktoi ton ichthyon]), and he accounts for their being found under such circ.u.mstances by the subsidence of the rivers, "when the water being evaporated the fish gradually descend beneath the soil in search of moisture; and the surface becoming hard they are preserved in the damp clay below it, in a state of torpor, but are capable of vigorous movements when disturbed.

In this manner, too," Theophrastus adds, "the buried fish propagate, leaving behind them their sp.a.w.n, which becomes vivified on the return of the waters to their accustomed bed." This work of Theophrastus became the great authority for all subsequent writers on this question.

ATHENaeUS quotes it[2], and adds the further testimony of POLYBIUS, that in Gallia Narbonensis fish are similarly dug out of the ground.[3]

STRABO repeats the story[4], and one and all the Greek naturalists received the statement as founded on reliable authority.

[Footnote 1: Lib. vi. ch, 15, 16, 17.]

[Footnote 2: Lib. viii. ch. 2.]

[Footnote 3: Ib. ch. 4.]

[Footnote 4: Lib. iv. and xii.]

Not so the Romans. LIVY mentions it as one of the prodigies which were to be "expiated," on the approach of a rupture with Macedon, that "in Gallico agro qua induceretur aratrum sub glebis pisces emersisse,"[1]

thus taking it out of the category of natural occurrences. POMPONIUS MELA, obliged to notice the matter in his account of Narbon Gaul, accompanies it with the intimation that although a.s.serted by both Greek and Roman authorities, the story was either a delusion or a fraud.[2]

JUVENAL has a sneer for the rustic--

"miranti sub aratro Piscibus inventis."--_Sat_. xiii. 63.

[Footnote 1: Lib. xlii. ch. 2.]

[Footnote 2: Lib. ii ch, 5.]

And SENECA, whilst he quotes Theophrastus, adds ironically, that now we must go to fish with a _hatchet_ instead of a hook; "non c.u.m hamis, sed c.u.m dolabra ire piscatum."[1] PLINY, who devotes the 35th chapter of his 9th book to this subject, uses the narrative of Theophrastus, but with obvious caution, and universally the Latin writers treated the story as a fable.

[Footnote 1: _Nat. Quaest._ vii 16.]

In later times the subject received more enlightened attention, and Beckmann, who in 1736 published his commentary on the collection [Greek: Peri Thaumasion akousmaton], ascribed to Aristotle, has given a list of the authorities about his own times,--Georgius Agricola, Gesner, Rondelet, Dalechamp, Bomare, and Gronovius, who not only gave credence to the a.s.sertions of Theophrastus, but adduced modern instances in corroboration of his Indian authorities.

NOTE (C.)

CEYLON FISHES.

(_Memorandum, by Professor Huxley._)

See p. 205.

The large series of beautifully coloured drawings of the fishes of Ceylon, which has been submitted to my inspection, possesses an unusual value for several reasons.

The fishes, it appears, were all captured at Colombo, and even had those from other parts of Ceylon been added, the geographical area would not have been very extended. Nevertheless there are more than 600 drawings, and though it is possible that some of these represent varieties in different stages of growth of the same species, I have not been able to find definite evidence of the fact in any of those groups which I have particularly tested. If, however, these drawings represent _six hundred_ distinct species of fish, they const.i.tute, so far as I know, the largest collection of fish from one locality in existence.

The number of known British fishes may be safely a.s.sumed to be less than 250, and Mr. Yarrell enumerates only 226, Dr. Cantor's valuable work on Malayan fishes enumerates not more than 238, while Dr. Russell has figured only 200 from Coromandel. Even the enormous area of the Chinese and j.a.panese seas has as yet not yielded 800 species of fishes.

The large extent of the collection alone, then, renders it of great importance; but its value is immeasurably enhanced by two circ.u.mstances,--the _first_, that every drawing was made while the fish retained all that vividness of colouring which becomes lost so soon after its removal from its native element; _second_, that when the sketch was finished its subject was carefully labelled, preserved in spirits, and forwarded to England, so that at the present moment the original of every drawing can be subjected to anatomical examination, and compared with already named species.

Under these circ.u.mstances, I do not hesitate to say that the collection is one of the most valuable in existence, and might, if properly worked out, become a large and secure foundation for all future investigation into the ichthyology of the Indian Ocean.

It would be very hazardous to express an opinion as to the novelty or otherwise of the species and genera figured without the study of the specimens themselves, as the specific distinctions of fish are for the most part based upon character; the fin-rays, teeth, the operculum, &c., which can only be made out by close and careful examination of the object, and cannot be represented in ordinary drawings however accurate.

There are certain groups of fish, however, whose family traits are so marked as to render it almost impossible to mistake even their portraits, and hence I may venture, without fear of being far wrong, upon a few remarks as to the general features of the ichthyological fauna of Ceylon.

In our own seas rather less than a tenth of the species of fishes belong to the cod tribe. I have not found one represented in these drawings, nor do either Russell or Cantor mention any in the surrounding seas, and the result is in general harmony with the known laws of distribution of these most useful of fishes.

On the other hand, the mackerel family, including the tunnies, the bonitos, the dories, the horse-mackerels, &c., which form not more than one sixteenth of our own fish fauna, but which are known to increase their proportion in hot climates, appear in wonderful variety of form and colour, and const.i.tute not less than one fifth of the whole of the species of Ceylon fish. In Russell's catalogue they form less than one fifth, in Cantor's less than one sixth.

Marine and other siluroid fishes, a group represented on the continent of Europe, but doubtfully, if at all, in this country, const.i.tute one twentieth of the Ceylon fishes. In Russell's and Cantor's lists they form about one thirtieth of the whole.

The sharks and rays form about one seventh of our own fish fauna. They const.i.tute about one tenth or one eleventh of Russell and Cantor's lists, while among these Ceylon drawings I find not more than twenty, or about one thirtieth of the whole, which can be referred to this group of fishes. It must be extremely interesting to know whether this circ.u.mstance is owing to accident, or to the local peculiarities of Colombo, or whether the fauna of Ceylon really is deficient in such fishes.

The like exceptional character is to be noticed in the proportion of the tribe of flat fishes, or _Pleuronectidae_. Soles, turbots, and the like, form nearly one twelfth of our own fishes. Both Cantor and Russell give the flat fishes as making one twenty-second part of their collection, while in the whole 600 Ceylon drawings I can find but five _Pleuronectidae_.

When this great collection has been carefully studied, I doubt not that many more interesting distributional facts will be evolved.

Since receiving this note from Professor Huxley, the drawings in question have been submitted to Dr. Gray, of the British Museum, and that eminent naturalist, after a careful a.n.a.lysis, has favoured me with the following memorandum of the fishes they exhibit, numerically contrasting them with those of China and j.a.pan, so far as we are acquainted with the ichthyology of those seas:--

Cartilaginea.

China and Ceylon j.a.pan.

Squali 12 15 Raiae 19 20 Sturiones 0 1

Ostinopterygii.

Plectognathi.

tetraodontidae 10 21 balistidae 9 19 Lophobranchii syngnathidae 2 2 pegasidae 0 3 Cten.o.branchii lophidae 1 3 Cyclopodii.

echeneidae 0 1 cyclopteridae 0 1 gobidae 7 35