(1153)
since it is yet nanmless, we may call Piscis Echino-stellaris Visciformis; its Body (as was noted by M. Hook) resembling an Echinus or Egg-fifsh, the main Branches, a Star, and the dividing of the branches, the Plant Missel-toe. This Fish spreads itself from a Pentagonal Root, which incompasseth the Mouth (being in the middle at a) into 5 main Limbs or branches, each of which, Just at the issuing out from the Body sub-divides it self into two (as at 1.) and each of those 10 branches do again (at 2.) divide into two parts, making 20 lesser branches: Each of which again, (at 3) divide into 2. smaller branches, making in all, 40. These again (at 4.) into 80; and those (at 5.) into 160; and they (at 6.) into 320: they (at 7.) into 640; at 8, into 1280; at 9, into 2560; at 10, into 5120; at 11, into 10240; at 12, into 20480; at 13, into 40960; at 14, into 81920: beyond which, the farther expanding of the Fish could not he certainly trac'd, though possibly each of those 81920 smal sprouts or threds, in which the branches of this Fish seem'd to terminate, might, if it could have been examined when living, have been found to subdivide yet farther. The Branches between the Joynts were not equally of a length, though for the most part pretty near: But those branches, which were on that side of the Joynt, on which th e preceding Joynt was placed, were always about a 4th or 5th part longer than those on the other side. Every of these branchings seemed to have, from the very mouth to the smallest twiggs or threds, in which it ended, a double chain or rank of pores, as appears by the Figure. The Body of the Fish was on the other side; and seemed to have been protuberant, much like an Echinus (Egg-Fish or Button-Fish) and, like that, divided into 5. ribbs or ridges, and each of these seemed to he kept out by two small bony ribbs.
In the Figure is represented fully and at length but one the main branches, whence 'tis easy to imagine the rest, cut off at the 4th sub-dividing Branch, which was done to avoyd Confusion as well as too much labour and expence of time in the Engraving.
The Figure, well viewed and considered will he more in instructive, than a larger Discourse thereon; those other particularities might have been mention'd, if the dryness, perplexedness and brittleness of the Fish, had not hindred it.
The
