of the tooth in the lower jaw that led to the disease; because, under any other circumstances, it seems probable that both pairs of incisors would have been equally elongated; whereas the upper pair were, comparatively speaking, but little affected. In the second rabbit that occurred this was found to be the case, and both pairs were observed to have very much exceeded the usual length; but then, in this instance, there was such an irregularity in their mode of growth, that we may, perhaps, find a better explanation of the anomaly in some derangement of the jaws, the result either of natural constitution or of accidental injury. Whatever this might have been (for I regret that this rabbit was not preserved, and no examination of the jaws made at the time), the effect was that of causing the lower pair of incisors, when viewed together, to assume the shape and appearance of the letter V, diverging from one another at the surface of the gum, and extending in opposite directions, to the length of nearly an inch and a half. The degree of divergency observed in the upper pair was nearly as great as this in the lower, and their length about the same; but their curvature very much greater; as, indeed, would necessarily result from the greater bend of that portion of the jaw in which these incisors are formed. In this instance, the portion without the gums had completed three parts of an exact circle, and their cutting edges were in close contact with the roof of the mouth.

Both the above rabbits, when taken, exhibited the appearance of being nearly starved to death, through an inability of procuring their usual food. In the first case, life had been sustained solely by the small quantity of herbage which the animal, was enabled to crop with its lips at the side of the mouth, which appeared to have been used for that purpose. In the second instance, even this method of feeding could scarcely have been resorted to with success, the rabbit being absolutely unable to close its mouth, from the pressure of the lower portion of the curve, formed by the upper incisors upon the surface of the tongue.

The individuals to which the foregoing observations relate occurred in the neighbourhood of Cambridge. I have since then being favoured by a friend with a third example of this monstrosity, in a rabbit killed in Lincolnshire, one of whose upper incisors was even longer than in the case last mentioned, having actually grown into the palate, and reentered that portion of the jaw from whence it originally sprung. This appeared to be the result of some local disease, affecting, in the first instance, that single tooth, which was also much twisted in its direction; but, as in process of time the growth of this tooth became so great as to interrupt the operation of

feeding, and thereby to diminish the ordinary friction upon the edges of the other three incisors, these likewise ultimately became preternaturally elongated, though to a much less degree.

ART. V. On the Kath of the Ancient Hebrews, considered as the Pelican of the Moderns.* By DAVID Scoт, M.D. M.W.S. F.H.S.E.

KATH is a species of bird reckoned unclean by the law of the Hebrews, and mentioned five times in their writings. In three passages †, it is rendered pelican by the Sept. Why it should not be so rendered in the other two passages ‡, it is not easy to discover. Perhaps the translators of these were not the same as the translators of the former; and what not a little favours this conjecture, the translators of the prophets are observed to be inferior to those of the law.

It is rendered pelican by the Vulg. in one passage §, but onocrotalus in three passages. Nor is the Vulgate to be charged with inconsistency in so doing; for onocrotalus is understood to be the same bird as the pelican. Formerly naturalists were not agreed upon this point; but, latterly, the number of dissenting voices has been on the decline. The arguments for and against it have been stated by Professor Cyprian, in his enlarged edition of Franzius's History of Animals.

Onocrotalus is properly a creature that brays like an ass, and the pelican is thought to have got that name from the harshness of its cry. This it chiefly utters when on the wing. In this respect it imitates those birds which approach it in size; such as the heron, the wild swan, and the crane.

Some say that the cry of the pelican resembles the complaint of a man in distress, and that David compares himself to it on account of his moaning.+ "By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin. I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert. I watch, and am like a lonely bird on the house top."

Of this passage the points of comparison may be disputed,

* Read before the Wer. Nat. Hist. Soc. 31st Jan. 1829, and communicated to the Magazine of Natural History, by Dr. Scot, Feb. 25.

+ Levit. xi. 18. Deut. xiv. 17., and Psalms cii. 7.

Isa. xxxiv. 11., and Zeph. ii. 14.

Whether does the Psalmist compare himself to those birds from his moaning, his leanness, or his solitude?

There is no idea intimated in the psalm that the Psalmist was in solitude, farther than that the birds with which he compares himself were solitary. They are called the pelican of the wilderness, the owl of the desert, the lonely bird on the house top. In all probability these birds are said to be solitary, because they cry when they are in that state.

If it be said that the Psalmist compares himself to these birds on account of his leanness, the comparison will only hold betwixt himself and the pelican. This bird is always lean, and so are most birds which live upon fish, particularly the gull tribe; but the owl is not mentioned for its leanness, nor the lonely bird on the house top.

If it be argued that he compares himself to these birds from the resemblance of his moaning to their cry, we are disposed to acquiesce. The cry of a man in grief is very disagreeable to the ear, and the cry of the pelican has always been reckoned such.

When David compared his moaning to the cry of the pelican, the comparison cannot be termed more improper than that of Hezekiah, when he compared his chattering, as the English Bible calls it, to that of the swallow and the crane, which they utter on the wing, whether they be moved with grief or not.

Some other birds, which make a disagreeable noise, have also been thought to be called onocrotali, particularly the bittern and spoonbill. The noise which the bittern makes is horrible and loud, and there have not been wanting some who believe onocrotalus to be the bittern. Others reckon it to be the spoonbill; and it seems to be agreed upon that the spoonbill makes more noise than the pelican, but that it is not so harsh. We agree with those who think the onocrotalus to be the pelican, rather than the bittern or spoonbill; though, at the same time, it must be confessed that it is not very clear what bird the ancients meant, either by the pelican or the onocrotalus.

Onocrotalus, if the etymology be considered, is any bird whose cry is so harsh as to suggest the braying of an ass, whether the bittern, spoonbill, or pelican of the moderns be understood. Pelican, pelicanos; or, with the moderns, pelicanus pelicani; is still more uncertain in its application. Some derive it from pelekan, to cut with an axe; and Aristophanus calls the Picus mártius the pelican, "apo tou pelekan ta zula,” from cutting trees with its bill. Aristotle, Cicero, and Pliny, however, seem to derive the word apo tou plateos, from the breadth of the bill, and certainly mean either the spoonbill, or

the pelican of the moderns; or, at least, a bird that frequents the waters and lives on fish. If we could satisfy ourselves that the word pelican came from pelat, a verb in Chaldee to vomit, the pelican of the Greeks, and the kath of the Hebrews, would have precisely the same meaning.

While the Septuagint and Jerome have occasionally rendered the kath of the Hebrews the pelican, the critics on the Continent are for rendering it the spoonbill; though we have not heard by what arguments that rendering is supported. We know that Bochart was inclined to translate kath the heron or bittern; or rather the pelican, heron, or bittern; because he had taken up the idea that cos standing next to kath in the two lists of birds, given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, was the pelican; but it did not occur to him that kath was the spoonbill.

As the ancient Greeks seem to have given the name of onocrotalus to the white pelican from its disagreeable cry, so the Arabians for a similar reason call it the water camel.

In the English Bible kath is translated pelican in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms, but with an inconsistency not easy to account for, cormorant in Isaiah and Zephaniah. The cormorant is a sea bird, living entirely by the fish which it catches in the ocean; and there is a manifest absurdity in making it dwell in the ruins of a great city, among houbaras*, owls, and ravens.

Both Isaiah and Zephaniah say that the kath was to take up its abode in the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh, and this is a very intelligible and probable account when spoken of the pelican. Babylon stood upon the Euphrates, and Nineveh upon the Tigris, and pelicans fed on the fishes of those rivers, and when their hunger was appeased, retired to the ruins to rest, whether during the night or the day.

In habits, however, whatever may be the size, there is not a great difference between the pelican and cormorant. Both of them have a pouch below the chops, though that of the cormorant is but small, and this circumstance makes the resemblance still more striking. While Linnæus has called the former Pelecànus Onocrotalus, he has given to the latter the name of Pelecanus Cárbo. The name of Pelecanus Onocrotalus was given to the white pelican by Hasselquist the Swedish traveller, and from him, we believe, introduced by Linnæus into his system.

See the author's dissertation on the kephud of the Hebrew Scriptures, considered as the houbara of the Arabs, and not the hedgehog of the English Bible.

Kath, the original term for pelican, is taken from kae, to vomit, and it is undoubtedly given to this bird, from its throwing up the food, which it has lodged in the large pouch under the lower mandible. This can be distended so much as to admit the heads of two men; and it is found to be a most convenient receptacle for the food which this bird collects for itself and its young.

Many of the ancients have said that the proper food of this bird is shellfish, which it swallows, and throws up when the heat of its stomach has opened the shells.

In all probability, however, what it collects of shellfish goes no farther than the pouch; and continues in the pouch till the seams are opened with its heat. Then the fishes are thrown out, and the bird picks out the flesh, and leaves the shells.

That shellfish is its food is somewhat questionable. As it seeks its food over the sea, far from the shore, and also frequents rivers and fresh-water lakes, it is more likely that fish without shells is its ordinary food; and this certainly will be more easily managed, if not more quickly digested.

When it wants to dislodge what is laid up in the pouch, it presses its bill against it, and part or all of what it contains is brought out. To accomplish this purpose considerable effort is required, but to this the bird is accustomed.

From this striking action has arisen the fable among the ancients, that the pelican pierced her own breast, and nourished her young with her blood, and on that account it became as celebrated for maternal, as the stork for filial, affection.

This story, like many others, rests upon no solid foundation; but the idea was natural enough to imperfect and astonished observers; and such, we suspect, has been the character, more or less, of all the ancient naturalists.

The action, however, which is so remarkable in this bird, shows the propriety and force of the Hebrew term by which it is named, kath being the vomiter or vomiting bird.

The action of vomiting, or throwing up the contents of the pouch or gizzard, &c., is common to this bird, and most of the gull tribe, when they are pursued; but, as the pelican does so of its own accord, it more strictly deserves this title than any of the gulls.

The pouch in question is not only to be considered as a repository for the fish caught, but as a net for catching it. The remark is made by Shaw the traveller, and if true the bird must have the art of dilating, as well as placing it in such a manner as to intercept the fish swimming around it.

The manner, however, in which the pelican fishes, does not render this account very probable. For this purpose the bird