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 Mueller, 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