(Vol. viii., p. 124.)
A Querist quoting from Porta's _Natural Magic_ the vulgar error that "not
only in Scotland, but in the river Thames, there is a kind of shell-fish
which get out of their shells and grow to be ducks, or such like birds,"
asks, what could give rise to such an absurd belief? Your correspondent
quotes from the English translation of the _Magia Naturalis_, A.D. 1658;
but the tradition is very ancient, Porta the author having died in 1515
A.D. You still find an allusion in _Hudibras_ to those--
"Who from the most refin'd of saints,
As naturally grow miscreants,
As _barnacles_ turn Soland geese,
In th' islands of the Orcades."
The story has its origin in the peculiar formation of the little mollusc
which inhabits the multivalve shell, the _Pentalasmis anatifera_, which by
a fleshy peduncle attaches itself by one end to the bottoms of ships or
floating timber, whilst from the other {224} there protrudes a bunch of
curling and fringe-like cirrhi, by the agitation of which it attracts and
collects its food. These cirrhi so much resemble feathers, as to have
suggested the leading idea of a bird's tail: and hence the construction of
the remainder of the fable, which is thus given with grave minuteness in
_The Herbal, or General Historie of Plants_, gathered by John Gerarde,
Master in Chirurgerie: London, 1597:
"What our eyes have seen, and our hands have touched, we shall declare.
There is a small island in Lancashire called the Pile of Foulders,
wherein are found the broken pieces of old and bruised ships, some
whereof have been cast thither by shipwreck; and also the trunks or
bodies, with the branches of old and rotten trees, cast up there
likewise, whereon is found a certain spume or froth, that in time
breedeth unto certain shells, in shape like those of a mussel, but
sharper pointed, and of a whitish colour; wherein is contained a thing
in form like a lace of silk finely woven as it were together, of a
whitish colour; one end whereof is fastened unto the inside of the
shell, even as the fish of oysters and mussels are; the other end is
made fast unto the belly of a rude mass or lump, which in time cometh
to the shape and form of a bird. When it is perfectly formed, the shell
gapeth open, and the first thing that appeareth is the foresaid lace or
string; next come the legs of the bird hanging out and as it groweth
greater, it openeth the shell by degrees, till at length it is all come
forth, and hangeth only by the bill. In short space after it cometh to
full maturity, and falleth into the sea, where it gathereth feathers,
and groweth to a fowl, bigger than a mallard, and lesser than a goose;
having black legs, and a bill or beak, and feathers black and white,
spotted in such manner as our magpie, called in some places a
Pie-Annet, which the people of Lancashire call by no other name than a
tree-goose; which place aforesaid, and all those parts adjacent, do so
much abound therewith, that one of the best may be bought for
threepence. For the truth hereof, if any doubt, may it please them to
repair unto me, and I shall satisfy them by the testimony of credible
witnesses."--Page 1391.
Gerarde, who is doubtless Butler's authority, says elsewhere, that "in the
north parts of Scotland, and the islands called Orcades," there are certain
trees whereon these tree-geese and barnacles abound.
The conversion of the fish into a bird, however fabulous, would be scarcely
more astonishing than the metamorphosis which it actually undergoes--the
young of the little animal having no feature to identify it with its final
development. In its early stage (I quote from Carpenter's _Physiology_,
vol. i. p. 52.) it has a form not unlike that of the crab, "possessing eyes
and powers of free motion; but afterwards, becoming fixed to one spot for
the remainder of its life, it loses its eyes and forms a shell, which,
though composed of various pieces, has nothing in common with the jointed
shell of the crab."
Though Porta wrote at Naples, the story has reference to Scotland; and the
tradition is evidently northern, and local. As to SPERIEND's Query, What
could give rise to so absurd a story? it doubtless took its origin in the
similarity of the tentacles of the fish to feathers of a bird. But I would
add the farther Query, whether the ready acceptance and general credence
given to so obvious a fable, may not have been derived from giving too
literal a construction to the text of the passage in the first chapter of
Genesis:
"And God said, Let the _waters bring forth abundantly_ the moving
creature that hath life, and _the fowl_ that may fly in the open
firmament of heaven?"