Note 2327 — BOOK IX. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF FISHES.

It is evident that there is some mistake in the MSS. either of Solinus or Pliny, as they both copied from the same source. Pliny speaks of “branchiæ,” or gills, while Solinus mentions “brachia,” or arms; the former, however, appears to be the preferable reading. Cuvier remarks that Ctesias, in his Indica, c. 27, has given a similar account, but that the worm mentioned by him has two teeth, and not gills, and that it only seizes oxen and camels, and not elephants. He states also, that an oil was extracted from it, which set on fire everything that it touched. Cuvier observes, that in most of the MSS. of Pliny the worm is sixty cubits long, instead of six, as in some few, a length which was quite necessary to enable it to devour an elephant; and he suggests that some large conger or muræna may have originally given rise to the story. It is by no means improbable that some individuals of the boa or python tribe, in the vicinity of the river, may have been taken for vast fish or river worms. Among the German traditions, we find the name “worm” given to huge serpents, which are said to have spread devastation far and wide; and in the north of England legends about similar “worms,” are by no means uncommon: the story about the “Laidly Worm,” in the county of Durham, for instance.