[8] See MIRROR, vol. xii. p. 253.

“It is with considerable diffidence that one would venture to differ in opinion with Sir Humphry Davy, but I cannot help remarking, that, as eels are now known to migrate from fresh water, as was shown in the case of the Richmond Park ponds, this restless propensity may arise from their impatience of the greater degree of warmth in those ponds in the month of May, and not from their wish to get into water still warmer, as suggested by Sir Humphry Davy.  Very large eels are certainly found in rivers, the Thames and Mole for instance, where I have seen them so that they must either have remained in them, or have returned from the sea, which Sir H. Davy thinks they never do, though I should add, that the circumstance already related of so many large eels being seen dead or dying during a hot summer, near the Nore, would appear to confirm his assertion.  If eels are oviparous, as Sir Humphry Davy thinks they are, would not the ova have been found, especially in the conger,—­many of which are taken and brought to our markets, frequently of a very large size?  It does not appear, however, that any of the fringes along the air-bladder have ever arrived at such a size and appearance as to have justified any one in the supposition that they were ovaria, though, as has been stated, distinguished naturalists, from the time of Aristotle to the present moment, have been endeavouring to ascertain this fact.  Since the above was written, I have been shown ova in the lamprey, and what appeared to have been melt taken from a conger eel, at a fishmonger’s in Bond-street.  These specimens were preserved by Mr. Yarrell, of Little Ryder-street, St. James’s, who had the kindness to open two eels, sent to him from Scotland, in my presence, and in which the fringes were very perceptible, though they were without any ova.  That ingenious and indefatigable naturalist is, however, of opinion that eels are oviparous, though he failed in producing proof that the common eels were so.

“In further proof, however, of eels being viviparous, it may be added (if the argument of analogy applies in this case), that the animalculae of paste eels are decidedly viviparous.  Mr. Bingley also, in his animal biography, says that eels are viviparous.  Blumenbach says, too, that ’according to the most correct observations they are certainly viviparous.’  He adds also, that, the eel is so tenacious of life, that its heart, when removed from the body, retains its irritability for forty hours afterwards.”

We are not inclined to attach very considerable importance to Mr. Bingley’s experience, much as we admire his entertaining Animal Biography:  we believe him to be classed among book-naturalists, and he wrote this work many years since.

(To be continued.)

* * * * *

QUEEN ANNE’S SPRING, NEAR ETON.