Note 2392 — BOOK IX. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF FISHES.
John Bostock translation
Naturalists have generally supposed, following Rondelet, Cuvier says, that the ancient glaucus was one of the class of centronotal fishes, the Scomber amia, or the Scomber glaucus of Linnæus; but that the incorrectness of this notion is easily proved. Aristotle says, that in the glaucus the appendices to the pylorus are few in number, as in the dorado (the Sparus aurata of Linnæus), while on the other hand the centronoti have them in almost greater number than any other kind of fish. Athenæus says, B. iii., that the glaucus was a large fish, and Oppian, Hal. iii. l. 193, speaks of it as taken with mullet. Aristotle, B. ii. c. 13, says, that it dwelt in deep water; but, according to Oppian, Hal. i. 170, it sought its food among rocks and in the sand; in addition to which characteristics, we find that it was a fish highly esteemed as a delicacy, the head being the part more especially preferred. From all these circumstances, Cuvier concludes that it was more probably a maigre, the Sciæna aquila of Cuvier, than one of the centronotal fishes.