________________
276
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
Lydekker, late of the Geological Survey of India, that the picks in use by agriculturists and miners in Ladakh consist of horns of wild sheep mounted on handles. I believe it probable that Dr. Schiern would be willing to accept this in preference to his own suggestion, namely, that the horns were taken from the skins which are worn as garments by the Tibetans. Perhaps it is as well to add here further, for the benefit of those who may not be aware of the origin of the connexion between ants and gold, that independently that part of the myth was cleared up some years ago, first by Dr. Wilson, who pointed out that the Sanskrit name for the small fragments of alluvial gold (gold dust) was pipilika, meaning "ant-gold," in reference to the size and form; but the characteristics of the "ants" were always supposed, up to the year 1867, to have been wholly imaginative. Then, however, it was found, as related above, that these characteristics were in the most minute particulars identical with those of Tibetan miners. The whole is an example of what has occurred in reference to other subjects also, namely, the too literal acceptance by the Greeks of the signification of Oriental words, the merely symbolical meaning not having been understood as such. This is, for instance, notably the case with reference to the "Indian Reed": as is printed out on a subsequent page.
It may be here noted that in the foot-notes of various editions of Ktêsias, Megasthenês, Herodotos, Elian, and Strabo, i.e., the authors who furnish the principal part of the statements with which this paper deals, commentators have not unfrequently suggested alterations in the accepted text to suit their preconceived notions of what is possible. With regard to several cases of this kind, I believe the explanations offered in the following pages will show that the text would lose the meanings intended were such changes adopted. Again, there are cases where commentators have suggested derivations for Greek words from Sanskrit or Persian names, which will, I think, be shown to be incorrect.
Many of the identifications of animals and plants suggested by commentators exhibit a sublime indifference on their part to the laws which govern and the facts observed with
[OCTOBER, 1885.
reference to the geographical distribution of animals. This practice is akin to the custom common enough among Englishmen in India of talking about animals by names strictly applicable to species not found in the Oriental region. Thus you will hear, at the present day, some sportsmen speaking of panthers, bison, elk, armadillos, alligators, toucans, canvas-backducks, and humming-birds, as being commonly shot by them in India, though as a matter of fact none of the animals to which these names are correctly applicable are ever found beyond the limits of the American Continent. It is only just to the Indian sportsmen of to-day to add that a majority among them are anxious to acquire the proper names of the animals they meet with, and there is accordingly a large sale in India for the text books on Indian Zoology.
As an example of how statements about animals sometimes require strict investigation, I remember on one occasion an Englishman assuring me very positively that sulphur-crested cockatoos were to be found in large numbers in a particular jungle in the Central Provinces of India. On my pointing out the impossibility of such being the case, the only evidence he could bring in support of the statement that this essentially Australian bird was to be found so far from its proper limits, was that the Râjà of the district told him so when he had been shown a domesticated specimen. To which I could only reply that a boastful spirit as to the resources of his own territory must have led the Râjâ to state what was not quite true.
I have still another charge to make against the commentators. Up to the very last edition of one of our Greek authors, which was published last year, a custom has been in practice of passing very stale comments from one to another, without reference being made to more recent and direct sources of information.
And here I would mention the names of two encyclopedists for whose works I have the greatest respect and admiration: they are Lassen and Ritter, to the researches by both of whom commentators are much beholden. But as may readily be conceived, during the last fifty years there has been a great advance in our scientific and accurate knowledge of the animals and plants of India, nevertheless we find modern editors making use of statements
