which were entertained on this subject and ventilated by certain old
writers. Between 1154 and 1189 Giraldus Cambrensis, in a work entitled
"Topographia Hiberniae," written in Latin, remarks concerning "many
birds which are called Bernacae: against nature, nature produces them
in a most extraordinary way. They are like marsh geese, but somewhat
smaller. They are produced from fir timber tossed along the sea, and
are at first like gum. Afterward they hang down by their beaks, as if
from a seaweed attached to the timber, surrounded by shells, in order
to grow more freely," Giraldus is here evidently describing the
barnacles themselves. He continues: "Having thus, in process of time,
been clothed with a strong coat of feathers, they either fall into the
water or fly freely away into the air. They derive their food and
growth from the sap of the wood or the sea, by a secret and most
wonderful process of alimentation. I have frequently, with my own
eyes, seen more than a thousand of these small bodies of birds,
hanging down on the seashore from one piece of timber, enclosed in
shells, and already formed." Here, again, our author is speaking of
the barnacles themselves, with which he naturally confuses the geese,
since he presumes the Crustaceans are simply geese in an undeveloped
state. He further informs his readers that, owing to their presumably
marine origin, "bishops and clergymen in some parts of Ireland do not
scruple to dine off these birds at the time of fasting, because they
are not flesh, nor born of flesh," although for certain other and
theological reasons, not specially requiring to be discussed in the
present instance, Giraldus disputes the legality of this practice of
the Hibernian clerics.
In the year 1527 appeared "The Hystory and Croniclis of Scotland, with
the cosmography and dyscription thairof, compilit be the noble Clerk
Maister Hector Boece, Channon of Aberdene." Boece's "History" was
written in Latin; the title we have just quoted being that of the
English version of the work (1540), which title further sets forth
that Boece's work was "Translait laitly in our vulgar and commoun
langage be Maister Johne Bellenden, Archedene of Murray, And
Imprentit in Edinburgh, be me Thomas Davidson, prenter to the Kyngis
nobyll grace." In this learned work the author discredits the popular
ideas regarding the origin of the geese. "Some men belevis that thir
clakis (geese) growis on treis be the nebbis (bills). Bot thair
opinoun is vane. And becaus the nature and procreatioun of thir clakis
is strange, we have maid na lytyll laboure and deligence to serche ye
treuth and verite yairof, we have salit (sailed) throw ye seis quhare
thir clakis ar bred, and I fynd be gret experience, that the nature of
the seis is mair relevant caus of thair procreatioun than ony uthir
thyng." According to Boece, then, "the nature of the seis" formed the
chief element in the production of the geese, and our author proceeds
to relate how "all treis (trees) that ar casein in the seis be proces
of tyme apperis first wormeetin (worm-eaten), and in the small boris
and hollis (holes) thairof growis small worms." Our author no doubt
here alludes to the ravages of the Teredo, or ship-worm, which burrows
into timber, and with which the barnacles themselves are thus
confused. Then he continues, the "wormis" first "schaw (show) thair
heid and feit, and last of all thay schaw thair plumis and wyngis.
Finaly, quhen thay ar cumyn to the just mesure and quantite of geis,
thay fle in the aire as othir fowlis dois, as was notably provyn, in
the yeir of God ane thousand iii hundred lxxxx, in sicht of mony
pepyll, besyde the castell of Petslego." On the occasion referred to,
Boece tells us that a great tree was cast on shore, and was divided,
by order of the "laird" of the ground, by means of a saw. Wonderful to
relate, the tree was found not merely to be riddled with a "multitude
of wormis," throwing themselves out of the holes of the tree, but some
of the "wormis" had "baith heid, feit, and wyngis," but, adds the
author, "they had no fedderis (feathers)."
Unquestionably, either "the scientific use of the imagination" had
operated in this instance in inducing the observers to believe that in
this tree, riddled by the ship-worms and possibly having barnacles
attached to it, they beheld young geese; or Boece had construed the
appearances described as those representing the embryo stages of the
barnacle geese.
Boece further relates how a ship named the Christofir was brought to
Leith, and was broken down because her timbers had grown old and
failing. In these timbers were beheld the same "wormeetin"
appearances, "all the hollis thairof" being "full of geis." Boece
again most emphatically rejects the idea that the "geis" were produced
from the wood of which the timbers were composed, and once more
proclaims his belief that the "nature of the seis resolvit in geis"
may be accepted as the true and final explanation of their origin. A
certain "Maister Alexander Galloway" had apparently strolled with the
historian along the sea-coast, the former giving "his mynd with maist
ernist besynes to serche the verite of this obscure and mysty dowtis."
Lifting up a piece of tangle, they beheld the seaweed to be hanging
full of mussel-shells from the root to the branches. Maister Galloway
opened one of the mussel-shells, and was "mair astonis than afore" to
find no fish therein, but a perfectly shaped "foule, smal and gret,"
as corresponded to the "quantity of the shell." And once again Boece
draws the inference that the trees or wood on which the creatures are
found have nothing to do with the origin of the birds; and that the
fowls are begotten of the "occeane see, quhilk," concludes our author,
"is the caus and production of mony wonderful thingis."
More than fifty years after the publication of Boece's "History," old
Gerard of London, the famous "master in chirurgerie" of his day, gave
an account of the barnacle goose, and not only entered into minute
particulars of its growth and origin, but illustrated its manner of
production by means of the engraver's art of his day. Gerard's
"Herball," published in 1597, thus contains, amongst much that is
curious in medical lore, a very quaint piece of zoölogical history. He
tells us that "in the north parts of Scotland, and the Hands adjacent,
called Orchades (Orkneys)," are found "certaine trees, whereon doe
growe certaine shell fishes, of a white colour tending to russet;
wherein are conteined little living creatures: which shels in time of
maturitie doe open, and out of them grow those little living foules
whom we call Barnakles, in the north of England Brant Geese, and in
Lancashire tree Geese; but the other that do fall upon the land,
perish, and come to nothing: thus much by the writings of others, and
also from the mouths of people of those parts, which may," concludes
Gerard, "very well accord with truth."
Not content with hearsay evidence, however, Gerard relates what his
eyes saw and hands touched. He describes how on the coasts of a
certain "small Hand in Lancashire called Pile of Foulders" (probably
Peel Island), the wreckage of ships is cast up by the waves, along
with the trunks and branches "of old and rotten trees." On these
wooden rejectamenta "a certaine spume or froth" grows, according to
Gerard. This spume "in time breedeth unto certaine shels, in shape
like those of the muskle, but sharper pointed, and of a whitish
color." This description, it may be remarked, clearly applies to the
barnacles themselves. Gerard then continues to point out how, when the
shell is perfectly formed, it "gapeth open, and the first thing that
appeereth is the foresaid lace or string"--the substance described by
Gerard as contained within the shell--"next come the legs of the Birde
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 commeth to full maturitie, and falleth
into the sea, where it gathereth feathers, and groweth to a foule,
bigger than a Mallard, and lesser than a Goose, having blacke legs and
bill or beake, and feathers blacke and white ... which the people of
Lancashire call by no other name than a tree Goose."
[Illustration: FIG. 1. THE BARNACLE TREE. (From Gerard's "Herball.")]
Accompanying this description is the engraving of the barnicle tree
(Fig. 1) bearing its geese progeny. From the open shells in two cases,
the little geese are seen protruding, whilst several of the
fully-fledged fowls are disporting themselves in the sea below.
Gerard's concluding piece of information, with its exordium, must not
be omitted. "They spawne," says the wise apothecary, "as it were, in
March or Aprill; the Geese are found in Maie or June, and come to
fulnesse of feathers in the moneth after. And thus hauing, through
God's assistance, discoursed somewhat at large of Grasses, Herbes,
Shrubs, Trees, Mosses, and certaine excrescences of the earth, with
other things moe incident to the Historic thereof, we conclude and end
our present volume, with this woonder of England. For which God's name
be euer honored and praised." It is to be remarked that Gerard's
description of the goose-progeny of the barnacle tree exactly
corresponds with the appearance of the bird known to ornithologists as
the "barnacle-goose"; and there can be no doubt that, skilled as was
this author in the natural history lore of his day, there was no other
feeling in his mind than that of firm belief in and pious wonder at
the curious relations between the shells and their fowl-offspring.
Gerard thus attributes the origin of the latter to the barnacles. He
says nothing of the "wormeetin" holes and burrows so frequently
mentioned by Boece, nor would he have agreed with the latter in
crediting the "nature of the occeane see" with their production, save
in so far as their barnacle-parents lived and existed in the waters of
the ocean.
The last account of this curious fable which we may allude to in the
present instance is that of Sir Robert Moray, who, in his work
entitled "A Relation concerning Barnacles," published in the
_Philosophical Transactions_ of the Royal Society in 1677-78, gives a
succinct account of these crustaceans and their bird-progeny. Sir
Robert is described as "lately one of his Majesties Council for the
Kingdom of Scotland," and we may therefore justly assume his account
to represent that of a cultured, observant person of his day and
generation. The account begins by remarking that the "most ordinary
trees" found in the western islands of Scotland "are Firr and Ash."
"Being," continues Sir Robert, "in the Island of East (Uist), I saw
lying upon the shore a cut of a large Firr tree of about 2-1/2 foot
diameter, and 9 or 10 foot long; which had lain so long out of the
water that it was very dry: And most of the shells that had formerly
cover'd it, were worn or rubb'd off. Only on the parts that lay next
the ground, there still hung multitudes of little Shells; having
within them little Birds, perfectly shap'd, supposed to be Barnacles."
Here again the description applies to the barnacles; the "little
birds" they are described as containing being of course the bodies of
the shell-fish.
"The Shells," continues the narrator, "hang at the Tree by a Neck
longer than the Shell;" this "neck" being represented by the stalk of
the barnacle. The neck is described as being composed "of a kind of
filmy substance, round, and hollow, and creased, not unlike the
Wind-pipe of a Chicken; spreading out broadest where it is fastened to
the Tree, from which it seems to draw and convey the matter which
serves for the growth and vegetation of the Shell and the little Bird
within it." Sir Robert Moray therefore agrees in respect of the manner
of nourishment of the barnacles with the opinion of Giraldus already
quoted. The author goes on to describe the "Bird" found in every
shell he opened; remarking that "there appeared nothing wanting as to
the internal parts, for making up a perfect Sea-fowl: every little
part appearing so distinctly, that the whole looked like a large Bird
seen through a concave or diminishing Glass, colour and feature being
everywhere so clear and neat." The "Bird" is most minutely described
as to its bill, eyes, head, neck, breast, wings, tail, and feet, the
feathers being "everywhere perfectly shaped, and blackish-coloured.
All being dead and dry," says Sir Robert, "I did not look after the
Internal parts of them," a statement decidedly inconsistent with his
previous assertion as to the perfect condition of the "internal
parts"; and he takes care to add, "nor did I ever see any of the
little Birds alive, nor met with anybody that did. Only some credible
persons," he concludes, "have assured me they have seen some as big as
their fist."
[Illustration: FIG. 2. BARNACLE TREE. (From Munster's "Cosmography.")]
This last writer thus avers that he saw little birds within the shells
he clearly enough describes as those of the barnacles. We must either
credit Sir Robert with describing what he never saw, or with
misconstruing what he did see. His description of the goose
corresponds with that of the barnacle goose, the reputed progeny of
the shells; and it would, therefore, seem that this author, with the
myth at hand, saw the barnacles only with the eyes of a credulous
observer, and thus beheld, in the inside of each shell--if, indeed,
his research actually extended thus far--the reproduction in miniature
of a goose, with which, as a mature bird, he was well acquainted.
On p. 157 is a woodcut, copied from Munster's "Cosmography" (1550), a
very popular book in its time, showing the tree with its fruit, and
the geese which are supposed to have just escaped from it.
This historical ramble may fitly preface what we have to say regarding
the probable origin of the myth. By what means could the barnacles
become credited with the power of producing the well-known geese? Once
started, the progress and growth of the myth are easily accounted for.
The mere transmission of a fable from one generation or century to
another is a simply explained circumstance, and one exemplified by the
practices of our own times. The process of accretion and addition is
also well illustrated in the perpetuation of fables; since the tale is
certain to lose nothing in its historical journey, but, on the
contrary, to receive additional elaboration with increasing age.
Professor Max Müller, after discussing various theories of the origin
of the barnacle myth, declares in favor of the idea that confusion of
language and alteration of names lie at the root of the error. The
learned author of the "Science of Language" argues that the true
barnacles were named, properly enough, Bernaculae, and lays stress on
the fact that Bernicle geese were first caught in Ireland. That
country becomes _Hibernia_ in Latin, and the Irish geese were
accordingly named Hibernicae, or Hiberniculae. By the omission of the
first syllable--no uncommon operation for words to undergo--we obtain
the name Berniculae for the geese, this term being almost synonymous
with the name Bernaculae already applied, as we have seen, to the
barnacles. Bernicle geese and bernicle shells, confused in name, thus
became confused in nature; and, once started, the ordinary process of
growth was sufficient to further intensify, and render more realistic,
the story of the bernicle tree and its wonderful progeny.
By way of a companion legend to that of the barnacle tree, we may
select the story of the "Lamb Tree" of Cathay, told by Sir John
Mandeville, whose notes of travel regarding crocodiles' tears, and
other points in the conformation of these reptiles, have already been
referred to. Sir John, in that chapter of his work which treats "Of
the Contries and Yles that ben bezonde the Lond of Cathay; and of the
Frutes there," etc., relates that in Cathay "there growethe a manner
of Fruyt, as thoughe it were Gowrdes: and whan thei ben rype, men
kutten (cut) hem a to (them in two), and men fyndem with inne a
lytylle Best (beast), in Flessche in Bon and Blode (bone and blood) as
though it were a lytylle Lomb (lamb) with outen wolle (without wool).
And men eaten both the Frut and the Best; and that," says Sir John,
"is a great marveylle. Of that frut," he continues, "I have eten; alle
thoughe it were wondirfulle"--this being added, no doubt, from an
idea that there might possibly be some stay-at-home persons who would
take Sir John's statement _cum grano salis_. "But," adds this worthy
"knyght of Ingolond," "I knowe wel that God is marveyllous in His
Werkes." Not to be behind the inhabitants of Cathay in a tale of
wonders, the knight related to these Easterns "als gret a marveylle to
hem that is amonges us; and that was of the Bernakes. For I tolde him
hat in oure Countree weren Trees that beren a Fruyt, that becomen
Briddes (birds) fleeynge: and tho that fellen in the Water lyven
(live); and thei that fallen on the Erthe dyen anon: and thei ben
right gode to mannes mete (man's meat). And here had thei als gret
marvayle," concludes Sir John, "that sume of hem trowed it were an
impossible thing to be." Probably the inhabitants of Cathay, knowing
their own weakness as regards the lamb tree, might possess a
fellow-feeling for their visitor's credulity, knowing well, from
experience, the readiness with which a "gret marvayle" could be
evolved and sustained.
Passing from the sphere of the mythical and marvellous as represented
in mediaeval times, we may shortly discuss a question, which, of all
others, may justly claim a place in the records of zoölogical
curiosities--namely, the famous and oft-repeated story of the "Toad
from the solid rock," as the country newspapers style the incident.
Regularly, year by year, and in company with the reports of the
sea-serpent's reappearance, we may read of the discoveries of toads
and frogs in situations and under circumstances suggestive of a
singular vitality on the part of the amphibians, of more than usual
credulity on the part of the hearers, or of a large share of
inventive genius in the narrators of such tales. The question
possesses for every one a certain degree of interest, evoked by the
curious and strange features presented on the face of the tales. And
it may therefore not only prove an interesting but also a useful
study, if we endeavor to arrive at some just and logical conceptions
of these wonderful narrations.
[Illustration]
Instances of the discovery of toads and frogs in solid rocks need not
be specially given; suffice it to say, that these narratives are
repeated year by year with little variation. A large block of stone or
face of rock is detached from its site, and a toad or frog is seen
hereafter to be hopping about in its usual lively manner. The
conclusion to which the bystanders invariably come is that the animal
must have been contained within the rock, and that it was liberated by
the dislodgement of the mass. Now, in many instances, cases of the
appearance of toads during quarrying operations have been found, on
close examination, to present no evidence whatever that the appearance
of the animals was due to the dislodgement of the stones. A frog or
toad may be found hopping about among some recently formed débris, and
the animal is at once seized upon and reported as having emerged from
the rocks into the light of day. There is in such a case not the
slightest ground for supposing any such thing; and the animal may more
reasonably be presumed to have simply hopped into the débris from its
ordinary habitat. But laying aside narratives of this kind, which lose
their plausibility under a very commonplace scrutiny, there still
exist cases, reported in an apparently exact and truthful manner, in
which these animals have been alleged to appear from the inner
crevices of rocks after the removal of large masses of the formations.
We shall assume these latter tales to contain a plain, unvarnished
statement of what was observed, and deal with the evidence they
present on this footing.
[Illustration: A TOAD.]
One or two notable examples of such verified tales are related by
Smellie, in his "Philosophy of Natural History." Thus, in the "Memoirs
of the French Academy of Sciences" for 1719, a toad is described as
having been found in the heart of an elm tree; and another is stated
to have been found in the heart of an old oak tree, in 1731, near
Nantz. The condition of the trees is not expressly stated, nor are we
afforded any information regarding the appearance of the
toads--particulars of considerable importance in view of the
suggestions and explanations to be presently brought forward. Smellie
himself, while inclined to be sceptical in regard to the truth or
exactness of many of the tales told of the vitality of toads, regards
the matter as affording food for reflection, since he remarks, "But I
mean not to persuade, for I cannot satisfy myself; all I intend is, to
recommend to those gentlemen who may hereafter chance to see such rare
phenomena, a strict examination of every circumstance that can throw
light upon a subject so dark and mysterious; for the vulgar, ever
inclined to render uncommon appearances still more marvellous, are not
to be trusted."
This author strikes the key-note of the inquiry in his concluding
words, and we shall find that the explanation of the matter really
lies in the clear understanding of what are the probabilities, and
what the actual details, of the cases presented for consideration. We
may firstly, then, glance at a few of the peculiarities of the frogs
and toads, regarded from a zoölogical point of view. As every one
knows, these animals emerge from the egg in the form of little
fish-like "tadpoles," provided with outside gills, which are soon
replaced by inside gills, resembling those of fishes. The hind legs
are next developed, and the fore limbs follow a little later; whilst,
with the development of lungs, and the disappearance of the gills and
tail, the animal leaves the water, and remains for the rest of its
life an air-breathing, terrestrial animal. Then, secondly, in the
adult frog or toad, the naturalist would point to the importance of
the skin as not only supplementing, but, in some cases, actually
supplanting the work of the lungs as the breathing organ. Frogs and
toads will live for months under water, and will survive the excision
of the lungs for like periods; the skin in such cases serving as the
breathing surface. A third point worthy of remembrance is included in
the facts just related, and is implied in the information that these
animals can exist for long periods without food, and with but a
limited supply of air. We can understand this toleration on the part
of these animals when we take into consideration their cold-blooded
habits, which do not necessitate, and which are not accompanied by,
the amount of vital activity we are accustomed to note in higher
animals. And, as a last feature in the purely scientific history of
the frogs and toads, it may be remarked that these animals are known
to live for long periods. One pet toad is mentioned by a Mr. Arscott
as having attained, to his knowledge, the age of thirty-six years; and
a greater age still might have been recorded of this specimen, but for
the untoward treatment it sustained at the hands, or rather beak, of a
tame raven. In all probability it may be safely assumed that, when the
conditions of life are favorable, these creatures may attain a highly
venerable age--regarding the lapse of time from a purely human and
interested point of view.