TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the book.
The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
THE OCTOPUS;
OR,
THE “DEVIL-FISH” OF FICTION AND
OF FACT.
[Illustration: THE OCTOPUS
(_Octopus vulgaris._)]
_AQUARIUM NOTES._
THE OCTOPUS;
OR,
THE “DEVIL-FISH” OF FICTION AND OF FACT.
BY HENRY LEE,
F.L.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S., &c.,
NATURALIST Of THE BRIGHTON AQUARIUM.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.
LONDON:
CHAPMAN AND HALL, 193, PICCADILLY.
1875.
LONDON:
BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.
I Dedicate this little Book
TO MY VENERABLE FRIEND,
DR. JAMES SCOTT BOWERBANK,
F.R.S., &c.,
ONE OF THE ORIGINATORS OF THE WATER VIVARIUM;
TO WHOSE VALUABLE ADVICE AND CHEERING ENCOURAGEMENT
I, LIKE MANY OTHERS, AM INDEBTED FOR THE CONFIRMATION
AND INCREASE OF AN EARLY LOVE OF THE
STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY.
H. L.
PREFACE.
When I accepted the position of Naturalist of the Brighton Aquarium,
after the death of my valued friend John Keast Lord, it became my
pleasant duty to watch and record events and circumstances connected
with the habits and development of the denizens of the tanks.
My notes of observations have, from time to time, appeared in the
Natural History columns of _Land and Water_, and have been honoured
by frequent quotation in the _Times_ and other newspapers. Grateful
for the kind reception accorded to them in their original form, I
re-publish them with considerable additions. They have, in fact,
been almost entirely re-written. I venture to hope that they may be
interesting to the public, and of some little value to science.
I have always endeavoured to observe carefully, to describe
faithfully, to record facts rather than to propound theories, and to
relate what I have seen and learned in language comprehensible by
all.
With excellent opportunities of studying the habits and movements
of living cephalopods, and with dead specimens of these animals on
the table before me, I have followed, scalpel in hand, the minute
description of their anatomy given by Professor Owen, in his masterly
treatise in the “Cyclopædia of Anatomy,” and by De Ferussac and
D’Orbigny in their splendid monograph on the same subject; the two
great sources from which almost all, if not all, subsequent writers
have drawn much of their information. Quotations from other authors
will be found duly noted.
I am indebted to my friend Mr. Thomas Davidson, F.R.S., &c., for the
beautiful portrait of the Octopus, which forms the frontispiece to
this volume; to Mrs. Edward Harris for the drawing of its eggs (fig.
6); to Miss Gertrude Woodward for that of its tongue (fig. 4); and to
Messrs. West and Co., and Mr. Charles A. Ferrier, for the care they
have respectively bestowed on the lithographing and engraving of the
illustrations.
HENRY LEE.
BRIGHTON AQUARIUM,
_August, 1875_.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION xiii
CHAPTER I.
THE OCTOPUS AND ITS RELATIVES 1
CHAPTER II.
OCTOPODS I HAVE KNOWN 7
CHAPTER III.
“THE TOILERS OF THE SEA” 12
CHAPTER IV.
THE DEVIL-FISH OF FICTION AND OF FACT 19
CHAPTER V.
THE OCTOPUS OUT OF WATER 37
CHAPTER VI.
NEW LIMBS FOR OLD ONES 49
CHAPTER VII.
SPAWNING OF THE OCTOPUS 56
CHAPTER VIII.
CUTTLES AND SQUIDS 67
CHAPTER IX.
ECONOMIC VALUE OF CUTTLE-FISHES 83
CHAPTER X.
GIGANTIC CUTTLE-FISHES 99
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
FIG. PAGE
THE OCTOPUS (_Octopus vulgaris_) _Frontispiece_.
1. THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta Argo_) 5
2. SUCKER OF THE OCTOPUS 21
3. MANDIBLES OF THE OCTOPUS 25
4. TONGUE OF THE OCTOPUS 26
5. THE OCTOPUS SWIMMING 28
6. EGGS OF THE OCTOPUS 58
7. THE COMMON CUTTLE-FISH (_Sepia officinalis_) 67
8. SEPIOLA RONDELETII 70
9. THE COMMON SQUID (_Loligo vulgaris_) 71
10. EGGS OF THE CUTTLE-FISH (_Sepia officinalis_) 73
11. SPAWN OF THE COMMON SQUID (_Loligo vulgaris_) 76
12. FAC-SIMILE OF DE MONTFORT’S “_Poulpe Colossal_” 101
INTRODUCTION.
More than 2200 years ago—nearly four centuries before the Evangelists
wrote their imperishable histories of the events on which the faith
of Christendom is based—Aristotle, the celebrated naturalist of
Stageira, in Macedonia, recorded observations of the habits and
reproduction of the Octopus which clearly show that he was more
intimately acquainted with its mode of life than any writer of a
later date between his day and ours.
For how many centuries before his time facts and fallacies
concerning this curious animal were handed down from father to son
in oral tradition, and from generation to generation in manuscript,
ages before printing was invented, it is impossible to say: he
occasionally quotes from the works of previous writers, and Strabo
tells us that he had a good collection of books, and was the first
philosopher who possessed a library of his own. But the faint
glimmering of information to be derived from early bookish lore was
insufficient to satisfy his desire and that of his sovereign for
more complete and perfect knowledge. Alexander the Great, who, in
his youth, was under his tuition for ten years, gave him, therefore,
the means of extending his researches, by placing at his disposal a
large sum of money and a staff of assistants. According to Pliny the
latter were sent to various parts of Asia and Greece under orders to
collect animals of all kinds, and by means of vivaria, fishponds,
aviaries, &c., “to watch their habits so closely that nothing
relating to them should remain unknown.” Aristotle thus accumulated a
multitude of notes and observations, many of which, though ridiculed
and discredited by later zoologists, were marvellously accurate; and
from them constructed a work elaborate in its details, grand in its
conception and idea, and comprehensive as a general history of the
Animal Kingdom.
Amongst the inhabitants of the sea therein described by him is, as
I have said, the Octopus or Polypus, and many of his statements
concerning it and its congeners have been remarkably confirmed by
recent observations. This animal has, therefore, been long known
to naturalists. The ancient Egyptians figured it amongst their
hieroglyphics;[1] the Greeks and Romans were well acquainted with it;
and since the time of Homer many of the ancient poets and authors
have mentioned it in their works.
There is little doubt that the idea of the Lernean Hydra, whose heads
grew again when cut off by Hercules, originated from a knowledge of
the Octopus. Diodorus relates of it that it had a hundred heads;
Simonides says fifty; but the generally received statement is that
of Apollodorus, Hyginus, &c., that it had only nine. Reduce the
number by one, and we have an animal with eight out-growths from
its trunk—the type of an Octopus, which is really capable of rapidly
developing afresh, and replacing by new ones, one or all of its eight
limbs in case of their being amputated or injured.[2] According to
the legend, Hercules dipped his arrow-heads in the gall of the hydra,
and, from its poisonous nature, all the wounds he inflicted with them
on his enemies proved fatal. It is worthy of notice that the ancients
attributed to the Octopus the possession of a similarly venomous
secretion. Thus Oppian writes:—
“The crawling preke a deadly juice contains,
Injected poison fires the wounded veins.”
Fishermen have been familiar with this animal from time immemorial;
but in modern days, although naturalists have occasionally noted some
peculiarities of its structure and habits, public attention was never
particularly attracted to it until, within the last few years, Victor
Hugo brought it again into notice by the publication of his “_Les
Travailleurs de la Mer_.” Since then it has been constantly exhibited
in aquaria, and “Octopus” has become a household word.
THE OCTOPUS.
CHAPTER I.
THE OCTOPUS AND ITS RELATIVES.
It is not my intention to formally portray the anatomy of the
Octopus,—the nature and uses of its various organs will be
sufficiently indicated in the course of my remarks,—but before giving
an account of its life-history and habits, I will briefly describe
its affinities, and the position it occupies in the scale of Nature.
One of the great primary groups or divisions of the Animal Kingdom
is that of the soft-bodied MOLLUSCA; which includes the cuttle, the
oyster, the snail, &c. It has been separated into five “classes,” of
which the one we have especially to notice is the _Cephalopoda_,[3]
or “head-footed,”—the animals belonging to it having their feet,
or the organs which correspond with the foot of other molluscs,
so attached to the head as to form a circle or coronet round the
mouth. Some of these have the foot divided into eight lobes, and are
therefore called the _Octopoda_:[4] others have, in addition to the
eight feet, lobes, or arms, two longer tentacular appendages, making
ten in all, and are consequently called the _Decapoda_.
Of the ten-footed section of the cephalopods, there are four
“families”; two only of which exist in Britain—the Teuthidæ, and the
Sepiidæ. The Teuthidæ are the Squids, or Calamaries, represented by
the long-bodied _Loligo vulgaris_, that has along its back a gristly,
translucent stiffener, shaped like a quill pen; from which and its
ink it derives its names of “calamary,” “pen-and-ink fish,” and
“sea-clerk.” The Sepiidæ are the Cuttles; as a type of which we may
take the common “cuttle-fish,” _Sepia officinalis_, the owner of the
hard, calcareous shell often thrown up on the shore, and known as
“cuttle-bone,” or “sea-biscuit.”
Of the eight-footed cephalopods,—the Octopoda,—there are two
families; namely, the Octopidæ, and the Argonautidæ. The first only
is found on our coasts. The British members of it are the common
Octopus, _O. vulgaris_, and the Eledone, _E. cirrosa_, a genus
chiefly distinguished from the octopus by its having only one row of
suckers, instead of two, along its arms or feet. The Argonautidæ,
which inhabit warmer seas than ours, and approach no nearer to us
than the Mediterranean and Adriatic, are represented by _Argonauta
argo_, the “Paper Nautilus,”—so called from the peculiar texture
of its shell, and the similarity of its shape to that of the true
Nautilus, _N. pompilius_, from which, however, it differs greatly in
organisation.
All of these four “families” have two plume-like gills,—one on each
side—and are therefore placed by Professor Owen in the “order,”
Dibranchiata. To this order belong also the extinct Belemnites, and
the still living Spirula, only one entire specimen of which has ever
been obtained, and that was in New Zealand, though its beautiful
internal shells are sometimes thrown up on the shores of Devon and
Cornwall.
The Tetrabranchiata, or four-gilled cephalopods, are represented by
a single living genus—the Pearly Nautilus, _N. pompilius_,—but in
Silurian times by 34 genera, and more than 1400 species.[5]
The following diagram will help to explain the relationship of the
Octopus to the rest of the cephalopoda.
MOLLUSCA.
/----------------------—|---------------------------\
_Classes._ Cephalopoda. Pteropoda. Lamellibranchiata.
| Gasteropoda. Brachiopoda.
|
/----|---------------------------------------\
_Orders._ Dibranchiata. Tetrabranchiata.
| |
/----|-------------—\ /-------------|------------\
_Sections._ Decapoda. Octopoda. Nautilidæ. Ammonitidæ.
| | Orthoceratidæ.
| +------------------------+
| |
/----|-----------------------\ /--------—|---------—\
_Families._ Teuthidæ. Sepiidæ. Spirulidæ. Octopidæ. Argonautidæ.
| Belemnitidæ. | | |
| | | |
/--|---—\ /-----—|--—\ /----|-----\ |
_Genera._ The Squids: The Cuttles: The Octopus; |
_Loligo_, &c. _Sepia_, &c. _O. vulgaris_, &c. |
|
/-----------|-----\
The Paper Nautilus:
_Argonauta_.
It will be seen that it may be said to be first cousin to the
Argonaut, or “Paper Nautilus,” and second cousin to the cuttle and
squid.
The Argonaut branch of the family is in possession of all the house
property, which seems to have been entailed on the female line; for
the paper-nautilus is, in fact, a female octopod provided with a
shell in which to carry and protect her eggs. Instead of the whole
of the eight arms tapering to a point, as in the octopus, two of
the dorsal limbs are flattened out at their extremity, and from
their membranes she secretes, and, if necessary, repairs the shell,
and, by applying them closely to its outer surface on each side,
holds herself within it; for it is not fastened to her body by any
attaching muscles.[6]
The male argonaut is very small,—not more than an inch in length,—and
has no shell. Hence, even by eminent naturalists, as Dumeril and De
Blainville, it was long regarded as doubtful whether the shell was
really secreted by the female, or whether, like the hermit-crab,
she borrowed for her protection the empty habitation of some other
mollusc.
It is an old belief, sanctioned by Aristotle, that the broad
membranous expansions of the two arms, are hoisted by the animal as
sails; and that in calm weather it sits in its boat-like shell, and
floats over the smooth surface of the sea, steering and paddling with
its other arms; and that, when danger threatens, it lowers its masts,
and sinks beneath the waves.
Oppian, in his “Halieutics,” poetically expresses his opinion that
it served as a model for the man who first conceived the idea of
constructing a ship, and embarking on the waters:—
“If humble guess may probably divine,
And trace th’ improvement to the first design,
Some wight of prying search, who wond’ring stood
When softer gales had smoothed the dimpled flood,
Observed these careless swimmers floating move,
And how each blast the easy sailor drove;
Hence took the hint, hence formed th’ imperfect draught,
And ship-like fish the future seaman taught.
Then mortals tried the shelving hull to slope,
To raise the mast, and twist the stronger rope,
To fix the yards, let fly the crowded sails,
Sweep through the curling waves, and court auspicious gales.”
This pretty fable was exploded in 1837 by Captain Sander Rang,
an officer of the French navy, and Port-captain at Algiers, who
carefully followed up some experiments communicated to him by Mrs.
Power, a French lady then residing at Messina; and the structure and
purpose of the two flattened limbs is now clearly understood.[7]
Instead of floating in its pleasure-boat over the sea, the argonaut
ordinarily crawls along the bottom, carrying its shell above it, keel
uppermost; and the broad extremities of the two arms are not hoisted
as sails, nor allowed, when at rest, to dangle over the side of the
“boat,” but are used as a kind of hood by which the animal retains
the shell in its proper position, as a man bearing a load on his
shoulders holds it with his hands. When it comes to the surface, or
progresses by swimming instead of walking, it does so in the same
manner as the octopus; namely, by the forcible expulsion of water
from its funnel-like tube.[8]
[Illustration: Fig. 1. The Paper Nautilus (_Argonauta argo_). The
membrane is shewn partially retracted and the shell exposed.]
This “paper-sailor,” then, whom the poets have regarded as endowed
with so much grace and beauty, and living in luxurious ease, is but a
fine lady octopus after all. Turn her out of her handsome residence,
and, instead of the fairy skimmer of the seas, you have before you
what Mr. Mantalini would call a “dem’d damp, moist, unpleasant body,”
like that of her weird and sprawling relative. The Paper Nautilus
has been regarded as the analogue of the snail, which, like it,
secretes an _external_ shell for the protection of its soft body;
and the octopus as that of the garden slug, which, having organs
like those of the snail, as the octopus has organs like those of the
shell-bearing argonaut, has no shell. The Cuttles and Squids may
be compared to some of the sea-slugs, as _Aplysia_ and _Bullæa_,
and to some land-slugs, as _Parmacella_ and _Limax_, which have an
_internal_ shell.[9]
The female octopus not being furnished with a shell, none of her arms
are modified in form, like those of the argonaut, for the purpose of
secreting and holding one. The male octopus, also unlike the male
argonaut, is as large as the female, but may easily be distinguished
from her by his having numerous tubercles and papillæ on the skin,
which become very prominent when he is irritated or excited.
D’Orbigny, not recognizing this peculiarity as sexual, regarded it
as a specific distinction, and made of the male octopus a separate
species, _O. tuberculatus_.
Having briefly explained the generic history and relationship of
the octopus, I propose to introduce to the reader some members
of the family with whom I have been on friendly terms. A former
casual acquaintance with some of their kinsfolk at the sea-side,
ripened, afterwards, into a close and prolonged intimacy with them
in their home; and I thus obtained an insight of their habits and
peculiarities, many of which are very curious and interesting.