See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6830701

Aristotle's study of the animal world: The case of the

kobios and phucis

Article  in  Perspectives in biology and medicine · February 2006

DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2006.0050 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

14 416

1 author:

Jason A. Tipton
St. John's College
18 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Believe it or not, I am just now finishing a paper on the importance of whale heads in Moby Dick. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jason A. Tipton on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Aristotle’s Study of
the Animal World

the case of the kobios and phucis

Jason A. Tipton

ABSTRACT Aristotle was a remarkable observer of the living world. He made

detailed observations on the anatomy and life history characteristics of many organisms
as part of a larger study into the differentiae (diaphora) of groups of animals.This reex-
amination of Aristotle’s observations of two small fishes is a study into the work or the
way of being of particular organic wholes. As such, it is directed by three main objec-
tives: to evaluate the accuracy of those observations Aristotle makes with regard to the
kobios and phucis in the History of Animals, as well as to understand how he might have
conducted his research; to determine whether aspects of those observations would
ground more philosophical arguments; and to contribute to the understanding of the
basic biology of these fishes. In so doing, this article also may introduce a new genera-
tion of biologists to the richness of Aristotle’s biological observations and the questions
that motivated them.

HE LAST 50 YEARS OR SO has seen a renewal of interest in Aristotle’s bio-

T logical writings. This interest has been driven by two different groups of
researchers with different assumptions and motivations. On the one hand there

St. John’s College, Box 2800, Annapolis, MD 21404.

E-mail: jtipton@sjca.edu.

A Fulbright Grant supplied funding for this research.The author is grateful to the Wiener Laboratory
at the American School of Classical Studies,Athens, for providing summer funding and important logis-
tical support throughout 2000–2001. The Lesvian people offered help and advice at many junctures.
Among the Lesvians, Hjalmar Dahm and Georgios Sitaras offered invaluable logistical assistance and
field help.The University of the Aegean, Mytilini, supplied materials for fish preservation. Ronna Bur-
ger and Kyle Piller read drafts of the paper and made many helpful suggestions.

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, volume 49, number 3 (summer 2006):369–83

© 2006 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

369
Jason A. Tipton

are the biologists, and chief among them, D’Arcy Thompson, who was obviously
struck by Aristotle’s rigor and thoughtful questioning. On the other hand there
are philosophers who, in their study of Aristotle’s work, have been forced to rec-
ognize that a significant portion of the corpus—more than one quarter of the
total by most accounts—is devoted to biological subjects, and who wish to make
sense of how these writings are to be understood in light of the canonical works,
such as the Metaphysics, Physics, De Anima, and Nichomachean Ethics. Many point
to David Balme as one of the principal sources of this interest in putting the bio-
logical works within a philosophical framework. The goal is to understand bet-
ter why Aristotle repeatedly turns to biological examples to clarify questions
encountered in the study of physics or metaphysics. For example, why does Aris-
totle claim that plants and animals are the paradigmatic examples of existents
(onta) or substances (ousiai) (Metaphysics 1028b9)? To describe Aristotle as a
philosophical biologist is to highlight the fact that philosophy and biology or
zoology were not distinct endeavors for him. Aristotle’s observations of animal
life are ontological or metaphysical in character, in that they include questions
regarding existence, the relationship between matter and form, and the identity
of objects (Frede 1985; Kosman 1987).
The organization of our knowledge about organisms is at the heart of what
is commonly regarded as Aristotle’s biological writings.The problems that Aris-
totle is confronting in those works are often the same as those addressed in con-
temporary biological research. Brock’s (2004) note regarding Aristotle’s investi-
gations into sperm competition in birds, and Buddington and Diamond’s (1986)
discussion of Aristotle’s ideas on the function of the pyloric caeca in fish, exem-
plify the surprising array of topics modern biologists might find in his inquiries.
D’Arcy Thompson (1913) makes a broader claim when he suggests that Aristotle

recognized the great problems of biology that are still ours to-day, problems of
heredity, of sex, of nutrition and growth, of adaptation, of the struggle for exis-
tence, of the orderly sequence of Nature’s plan. Above all he was a student of
Life itself. If he was a learned anatomist, a great student of the dead, still more
was he a lover of the living. Evermore his world is in movement. (p. 15)

Darwin’s appraisal of Aristotle seems to be equally laudatory: “Linnaeus and

Cuvier have been my two gods . . . but they were mere school-boys to old
Aristotle.” In examining the letter in which Darwin makes this statement,
Gotthelf (1999) suggests that Darwin was most impressed by Aristotle’s func-
tional explanations of biological phenomena. Darwin found in Aristotle the
“ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great mod-
ern advocate of comparative functional explanation” (p. 3).
Most scholars agree that in Parts of Animals (PA) part I, Aristotle recognizes
the need to incorporate explanations based on necessity and teleology, as a
methodological principle (Balme 1987a; Furth 1987). However, in the course of
the argument of PA I, another methodological statement emerges. In a discus-

370 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

sion of the way in which the study of nature is to be conducted, Aristotle points
to the fact that one needs to look at the actions (ta praxeis) of animals; he makes
a distinction between the actions of animals that are common, those that are ac-
cording to kind (genos), and those that are according to species or form (eidos)
(PA 645b21–28).Throughout the PA a similar distinction is made in the discus-
sions of ergon, which is usually translated as “function” or “work.” We can for-
mulate the last stage—that inquiry into the actions according to eidos—as focus-
ing on an examination of the function (ergon) of the form (eidos). An analysis of
the function and work of organic parts and wholes emerges as a crucial aspect
of the study of nature.
One of my goals in this reexamination of Aristotle’s observations is to under-
stand the relationship between the two activities most appreciated by Darwin—
taxonomy and functional explanations, broadly understood—in Aristotle’s de-
tailed observations of some particular fishes. When Aristotle discusses the
function or work of an organic whole, he seems to have something like life his-
tory in mind. Much of his emphasis seems to be on comparing and contrasting
life history characteristics of different kinds of organisms, in an attempt to get at
a causal account of the parts of animals and their different ways of being in the
world.When life history traits of different kinds overlap, taxonomic ambiguities
arise.
This study revisits Aristotle’s notes on the life history of several small fishes, the
kobios—which I will argue refers to the giant goby (Gobius cobitis Pallas)—and the
phucis—which I have come to identify as the intertidal blenny (Parablennius san-
guinolentus Pallas). In modern terms, Aristotle comments on the habitat, diet,
spawning, sexual dimorphism, and egg characteristics of these fishes. Today, as in
Aristotle’s time, G. cobitis and P. sanguinolentus occupy the rocky near-shore habi-
tat in the Bay of Kalloni, Lesbos.Very little is known of P. sanguinolentus, and what
little is known of G. cobitis comes from populations in the Atlantic (Gibson 1970).
The main objectives of this work are to evaluate the accuracy of Aristotle’s obser-
vations of the kobios and phucis and to understand how Aristotle might have con-
ducted his research; to begin to put these observations into a philosophical frame-
work; and to contribute to the understanding of the basic biology of these fishes.
Not only is this work more empirical than other work in the history and phi-
losophy of biology, the approach that I take—in particular, the focus on two
species or kinds—differs from what Balme, Gotthelf, Lennox, and others have
done on the History of Animals (HA) and Aristotle’s biological works in general.
Balme (1991) points out that the aim of the HA is not to give a natural history
of any particular species or variety, but, as Aristotle says, to lay out the “differen-
tiae and attributes of all animals” (HA 491a9). Likewise, Lennox (1987) argues
that the focus on differentiae and widest class generalizations in the HA is con-
sistent with the practice sketched in Posterior Analytics. As Balme (1987b) puts it:
“The HA is a collection and preliminary analysis of the differences between
animals.The animals are called in as witnesses to differentiae, not in order to be

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 371

Jason A. Tipton

described as animals” (p. 88).This means that the parts and characteristics of any
given kind like the kobios are distributed to various sections of the HA.
I have concentrated on particular kinds, rather than Aristotle’s separate dis-
cussions of the breeding or nutrition of the genos of fish. In putting together the
observations that Aristotle makes of the kobios and phucis that are scattered
through the HA, I am not challenging Balme’s contention that the HA is not
devoted to accounts of particular kinds, but I can imagine Aristotle devoting ser-
ious attention to particular kinds as he thought through the issues that emerge
in the HA. If one needs to look at, puzzle over, collect, and compare the actions
of animals that are common, specific to genos, and specific to species (PA 645b21-
28), a focus on the kobios and phucis seems justified: even if the HA is not organ-
ized around particular species or kinds, the differentiae that are at the heart of
the HA are manifested in those species or kinds.Aristotle suggests as much when
he says that we must study the various kinds of animals by examining the nature
of each one separately (HA 491a4).

Study Site and Methods

The bulk of Aristotle’s work in natural history was done in the North Aegean,
centered around Mytilene on the north Aegean island of Lesbos (Lee 1985;
Thompson 1913). In fact, Lesbos and Pyrrah (on the Bay of Kalloni) are among
the very few place names mentioned by Aristotle (e.g., HA 621b12, 621b22).
Aristotle is thought to have traveled to Lesbos with Theophrastus shortly after
Plato’s death. Lesbos is a relatively large island (163,000 ha) in the northern
Aegean Sea.The Bay of Kalloni is a large (14,500 ha) body of water that divides
the island into two lobes. The climate of the island is typically dry, with a pro-
nounced spatial and seasonal variation in rainfall. The average annual rainfall in
the eastern part of the island is 725 mm, while that in the western half is approx-
imately 400 mm per year.
Aristotle did not lay out the methods he employed in his biological works.
Based on methods described in literary works (e.g., Plato’s Sophist or Athenaeus’
Deipnosophists) and depicted on vase paintings, it is likely that he would have cap-
tured the kobios and phucis by means of hook and line. Because I wished to find
out what Aristotle might have been observing and how those observations were
made, I also collected fish with hook and line. I carried out monthly sampling
between September 2000 and August 2001 in the shallow lagoon waters near the
ancient site of Pyrrah (Figure 1). Additional material was collected in March
2003 in the same area. Sampling was conducted by habitat in several small
lagoons with baited hooks (usually four to six) set at 20 m intervals in the shal-
low waters (<1.5 m). Specimens collected for laboratory examination were pre-
served in 10% formalin and transferred to 70% ethanol. Live fish were also col-
lected and observed in tanks at the American School of Classical Studies,Athens.
All of the preserved material was transported to St. John’s College, Annapolis, for

372 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

Figure 1
Study area, Bay of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece, approximately 4 km north of antique Pyrrah.

archiving. I examined a number of characters, including temperature, salinity,

principal habitat of adults and of young, age at sexual maturity, sexual dimor-
phism, number of mature ova, spawning period, spawning habitat, and principal
diet.While these studies go beyond what is needed to evaluate what Aristotle says
about these fish, they can contribute to a fuller understanding of their biology.
In the laboratory, all individuals were sexed, and standard length (measured
from the snout to the end of the caudal peduncle) was determined. In addition,
10 individuals collected during the March 2003 collection were preserved in
alcohol in order to count otolith rings. Kovacic (2001) discuses the problems
associated with the aging of Gobiidae fishes, such as extra and missing rings that
could be the result of starvation, injury, or rapidly fluctuating environmental fac-
tors. The age-growth data are presented here with those problems in mind. In
addition to the standard lengths, the lengths of the anal, dorsal, pelvic, and pec-
toral fins were measured to evaluate sexual dimorphism. All fin lengths were
reported as a ratio to standard length so as to correct for allometry. Statistical
analyses were performed in SPSS 8.0 for Windows.To determine fecundity, ripe
ovaries were removed, damp dried, and weighed. A portion of the ovary was cut
off and weighed, and the number of mature oocytes counted, from which an
estimate of total number of oocytes could be obtained (Gibson 1970).

Life History Characteristics

I now have a sense of how Aristotle might have proceeded in his biological work
on Lesbos, as well as understanding, from a modern biological perspective, what
he was examining. In the case of the kobios, Aristotle might have been making
observations of what are presently considered three taxonomically distinct fishes:

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 373

Jason A. Tipton

Figure 2

Aristotle’s kobios, Gobius cobitis.

S OURCE : A LL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY J. T IPTON .

the grass goby (Zosterisessor ophiocephalus Pallas), black goby (G. niger, Linnaeus),
and giant goby (G. cobitis) (Figure 2). It is not clear whether Aristotle would have
distinguished these three at times to suit certain purposes or lumped them to-
gether under the term kobios. Because G. cobitis was the most frequently col-
lected species and the observations made by Aristotle seem best to describe it,
my analysis of the kobios will focus on this species. Nonetheless, these species are
so similar that it is difficult to be certain which species Aristotle is discussing.
Aristotle’s phucis most likely refers to a blenny (P. sanguinolentus) (Figure 3). Spec-
imens of P. sanguinolentus were collected in every month with the exception of
November 2000.
Habitat
Aristotle noted that gobies are found near the shore (HA 598a9). He further
suggested that gobies are estuarine and utilize the input of freshwater in these
areas for feeding and spawning (HA 601b17). I observed both G. cobitis and
P. sanguinolentus in the shallow lagoon waters near the shore. Even from shore,
one can identify G. cobitis as it lies in wait for prey or moves about in search of
cover. Given its propensity to occupy crevices between pebbles or algae covered
rocks, and to exhibit an underwater “flight” behavior, P. sanguinolentus is harder
to see from shore (Zander 1986).
Salinity at the study locale varied between 40 and 45 ppt over the period be-
tween September 2000 and August 2001.While one might expect more estuar-
ine water conditions, given the proximity of the relatively large marsh at the
head of the bay, the salinity did not change significantly. In fact, the water salin-
ity was >35 ppt, which is more saline than typical sea water (the average ocean
salinity is 35 ppt).This may be due to the relatively little rain the island receives.
The evaluation of Aristotle’s claim that these fishes utilize estuarine areas could
be complicated by a decline since his time in the overall rainfall received in the
study area.

374 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

Figure 3
Aristotle’s phucis, Parablennius sanguinolentus.

During January 2001, temperature and salinity were measured 100 m into the
marsh above the lagoon in which most of the specimens were captured; the
salinity there measured 29 ppt, and the water temperature was 8ºC.As the lagoon
gives way to marsh areas, the substrate becomes siltier and the larger nesting
rocks that are found in the lagoons are no longer present. As one moves into the
marsh, it appears that the habitat becomes more appropriate for G. niger (Miller
1986). In saying that these fish utilize estuarine areas, Aristotle appears to be
highlighting the structural and geomorphological features of salt marshes and
lagoon areas, not the areas where salt and freshwater are necessarily mixing.
During the 2000–2001 collection period, water temperature in the small
lagoons that comprised the study area followed a seasonal cycle that ranged
between 11.5ºC in February and 26.5ºC in August. During collections made in
March 2003, the water temperatures were colder, ranging from 7ºC to 10ºC.The
relatively cold waters may account for the difficulty in collecting fish during this
period. Temperatures below 10ºC seem to drive the fish from the near-shore
habitat into deeper, warmer water. Fishing in deeper holes where the shore drops
precipitously did yield some fish on colder days in March 2003. Aristotle ob-
served that, unlike most fish, the kobios remains in the lagoons near Pyrrah dur-
ing winter (HA 621b13).While I found this to be true in 2000–2001, G. cobitis
was scarce in the cold spring of 2003.
The hook-and-line method of capture made detailed notes on habitat possi-
ble. As already noted, the gobies, and in particular G. cobitis, utilize the rocky
near-shore habitat. Larger G. cobitis (>12 cm) occupy sites under relatively large
rocks (>1 m in diameter) in shallow water (<0.5 m) within 3 m of shore, espe-
cially during periods of spawning, when the water temperature is above 10ºC.
The substrate under these rocks and boulders is usually composed of coarse sand
and gravel. Smaller fish are in shallower water, closer to shore. Gobius cobitis often
remained motionless and were typically observed on a sand and gravel substrate
in shallow water. There was often abundant submerged aquatic vegetation
around the larger shelter rocks under which G. cobitis were collected. Gobius cobi-

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 375

Jason A. Tipton

tis males, like the larger males of a protogynous goby (Coryphopterus nicholsii)
studied by Kroon, de Graaf, and Liley (2000), defended territories that always in-
cluded one or more shelter rocks that were used as refugia.
The substrate on which G. cobitis was most frequently collected was a mixture
of sand, gravel (most of which was derived from volcanic material), and coral and
shell fragments. The black-and-white mottled coloration of the substrate was
matched by the cryptically colored salt-and-pepper pattern of both G. cobitis and
P. sanguniolentus. Other populations of G. cobitis, which were observed elsewhere
around Lesbos where the substrate is whiter, were generally much lighter; these
fish may be what Aristotle has in mind in speaking of the “white goby” in the
straights of Pyrrah (HA 621b19).
The few specimens of G. niger were captured in areas with a silty substrate,
under relatively large rocks (<0.5 m) within 0.5 m from shore. The grass goby
(Z. ophiocephalus) was captured almost exclusively in large patches of seagrass
(Posidonia oceanica) and algae, at depths between 0.5 and 2 m.While Z. ophioceph-
alus is generally found in brackish waters with mud substrate (Miller 1986), it
was collected in the Bay of Kalloni on a coarse sand and gravel substrate in rela-
tively high salinities.
In describing agonistic behavior and shelter occupation of several species of
blenny (Blenniidae) and G. cobitis, Faria, Almada, and Do Carmo Nunes (1998)
noted that the blennies dominated over similar-sized G. cobitis. I set up a 30-gal-
lon tank in the laboratory to observe the interactions between captive groups of
gobies and P. sanguinolentus. Two shelter rocks were situated on a substrate of
small gravel. I observed many instances of domination by P. sanguinolentus over
both G. niger and G. cobitis. P. sanguinolentus aggressively attacked gobies of simi-
lar size in order to drive them from rock nests. In response, the gobies would dis-
play dorsal fins and open their mouths with head and back bent backwards; in
the approximately dozen encounters I observed, P. sanguinolentus was always suc-
cessful at driving out the often larger goby.
Diet
“Other fishes,”Aristotle observes,“feed habitually on mud or sea-weed or sea-
moss or the so-called stalk-weed or growing plants; as for instance, the phucis, and
the goby; and by the way, the only meat that the phucis will touch is that of
prawns” (591b10). In my studies, algae (Enteromorpha) comprised a significant
portion of the diet of G. cobitis and the main component of the diet of P. san-
guinolentus. The fact that P. sanguinolentus could be captured with shrimp-baited
hooks, even though its regular diet consists entirely of algae, is evidence that
Aristotle is referring to this blenny in speaking of the phucis. While Aristotle is
correct in suggesting that the kobios feeds habitually on seaweed or sea-moss, it
does not feed exclusively on such things. Dominant prey of G. cobitis included di-
verse benthic crustaceans, amphipods, and isopods, while occasional prey in-

376 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

cluded other gobies (juvenile G. cobitis and possibly Pomatoschistus microps), insects,
whelks, and limpets. Finally, snails (prosobranchs) also make up a portion of the
diet of G. cobitis and were found in the gut of one individual of P. sanguinolentus.
Sexual Dimorphism
Aristotle notes that the male of the phucis differs from the female in being
blacker and having larger scales (567b20). Zander (1986) has confirmed that
P. sanguinolentus is sexually dimorphic, with the males becoming darker and
developing enlarged bulbs on the anal fin (Figure 3); but these fish are not scaled,
so perhaps Aristotle is referring to the bulbs of the anal fin when speaking of
their “scales” as being larger (the Greek, ê lepis, is ambiguous). His comment
about sexual dimorphism might also be referring to gobies. Males and females
of G. cobitis are also sexually dimorphic, with males becoming darker as the
spawning season approaches. While becoming very dark, males also develop a
bluish-white color along the margins of their median fins. Some darkening of
G. cobitis females was also observed, but without the bluish-white margin of the
median fins. Gobius cobitis males have significantly larger first dorsal fins (paired
samples t-test, p<0.05), a deeper, more robust caudal peduncle (p<0.05), and
generally smaller pelvic fins (p=0.058), and tend to have larger anal fins (p=
0.081). Aristotle’s claims regarding sexual dimorphism remain ambiguous.
Spawning
Aristotle observed that these fish deposit eggs close to stones (HA 567b12).
He also makes a more general remark that “oviparous fish as a rule spawn only
once a year. The little phucis or black goby is an exception, as it spawns twice”
(567b12). Many marine fishes use estuarine waters for spawning, “for the water
close in to shore is warm and is better supplied with food than the outer sea, and
serves as a protection to the spawn against the voracity of the larger fish” (HA
567b14). From my observations, it appears as if both G. cobitis and P. sanguinolen-
tus spawn more than once in a year, perhaps starting as early as February in
warmer years and lasting through the summer, building and guarding nests near
large rocks. Immature and ripening eggs were observed in G. cobitis females as
early as December, while ripened eggs were present in females in January, when
water temperatures were approximately 12°C. Ripening eggs were observed in
P. sanguinolentus in December, during the relatively warm 2000–2001 collection
period; these data suggest a longer spawning period for P. sanguinolentus than has
been previously reported (Zander 1986).The study site, composed of a series of
small lagoons near the outlet of a salt marsh, provides refuge for spawn. During
non-spawning times, small, juvenile fish are relatively plentiful in the shallow
waters within one meter of shore. It appears as if every three months or so, larger
fish move into the shallow near-shore areas to spawn; this is reflected in the aver-
age standard length of the fish captured. For example, in March when males in

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 377

Jason A. Tipton

Figure 4
Ovary from G. cobitis with part of the membrane and individual cells removed on the left.

high color and ripe females were captured, the average length of the specimens
was over 11 cm. Months in which ripe eggs were not present in females, and thus
not spawning, were characterized by smaller specimens (<9 cm).
G. cobitis in the Bay of Kalloni matures in two to three years at about 7–10
cm, which is consistent with other reports (Gibson 1970). The smallest G. cobitis
captured was 6.9 cm, while the largest was a 16.4 cm female. By otolith analy-
sis, this latter fish was four years old, the oldest G. cobitis captured. The smallest
P. sanguinolentus collected was 6.9 cm, while the largest was an 11.9 cm female.
Of animals whose sex could be determined unambiguously, females made up
66% of the catch of G. cobitis. The catch of P. sanguinolentus was evenly divided
between males and females.
Eggs
Aristotle described the spawn of the goby as flat and crumbly (567b12). He
is most likely referring to the way in which the ovaries are flattened on three
sides when full of eggs, yet crumble into individual eggs when the membrane is
removed (Figure 4). G. cobitis females in the Bay of Kalloni are sexually mature
at approximately 7 cm in length.The number of ripened eggs for 12 females (7–
16 cm) varied from 1,000 to over 11,000. P. sanguinolentus females are mature at
8 cm; the number of ripened eggs in these fish ranged from 550 to over 9,300.

Discussion
This reevaluation of some aspects of Aristotle’s work in zoology and natural his-
tory demonstrates that he could have done much of his work by observing these
organisms in the shallow lagoon waters of the Bay of Kalloni near the ancient
site of Pyrrah. Among other things, he could have observed the principal habi-
tat of juveniles and adults, and aspects of their spawning behaviors. My observa-
tions are largely consistent with and confirm Aristotle’s detailed reports of the
natural history characteristics of these fish. Aristotle’s kobios is not generally a

378 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

food fish like the tuna; some of the locals on Lesbos, especially near the village
of Skala Polichnitou, will occasionally eat gobies, but never blennies. Neither
G. cobitis nor P. sanguinolentus were observed in fish markets. The fact that these
fish are not generally of interest to fisherman suggests not only that Aristotle
transcended the boundaries of what was in the kitchen, but that he may have
made his observations without interviewing fishermen or relying on their catch
for specimens (cf. Lee 1985).
When I began this project, I thought that kobios most likely referred to the
black goby (G. niger) and that, following D’Arcy Thompson (1947), phucis
referred either to a goby or a wrasse (Labridae). In the relevant passages in the
HA (e.g., 567b12), the two terms sometimes seem to refer to the same fish. I
now believe that phucis refers to a blenny, a kind that is distinct from the kobios
but that shares much in common with gobies. This unexpected difficulty with
regard to the terms gives us an opportunity to think about some significant
problems. That Aristotle would speak about the kobios and phucis in the same
context is not surprising. G. cobitis and P. sanguinolentus are similar from an eco-
logical perspective, as they share many life history characteristics; of greatest
interest to Aristotle, the ergon or work of these fish is similar. The same type of
reasoning is given by modern biologists in attempting to account for conver-
gence, why two species that do not share a common ancestor come to resemble
one another (cf. Balme 1987a; Mayr 1963).
These small, cryptobenthic fishes have much in common.They have a similar
salt-and-pepper mottled coloration and similar body shapes, with relatively
robust head regions that taper towards a rounded tail, upturned eyes, and termi-
nal mouths. The pelvic fins of G. cobitis and P. sanguinolentus look different, but
they are similar in their work or activity; gobies have modified pelvic fins that
are united into a sucking disc to adhere to substrate, while P. sanguinolentus has
pronounced pelvic fin rays that seem to allow it to maintain a position on the
substrate.When Aristotle discusses the echeneis, which is usually thought to be a
blenny, a goby, or a remora, he says that its fins resemble feet (HA 505b20), which
could also be said of P. sanguinolentus.The pelvic fins of both kinds are such that
they suit a lifestyle oriented towards the bottom, towards the substrate, and are
well suited for the turbulent conditions that occur when the winds are persist-
ently strong across the Bay of Kalloni.Aristotle would suggest that they are func-
tionally analogous, which would help us understand why he talks of the kobios
and phucis in the same contexts. As similarly functioning beings embedded in an
environment, the fishes are morphologically similar and have many overlapping
characters and ways. In modern terms, the kobios and the phucis might be
grouped together under some morphological or ecological species concept.Yet,
as Aristotle notes, they can also be clearly distinguished by such traits as diet or
sexual dimorphism. Thus, these two organismal wholes can be collected under
some notions or distinguished under others.
The fact that kobios and phucis are hard to distinguish as distinct kinds in Aris-

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 379

Jason A. Tipton

totle’s writing, I would suggest, has everything to do with their common habits
of life, with the powers that each kind has in its struggle for existence. If the
terms kobios and phucis do refer to different animals, perhaps we are pushed to
the question, why and how do animals differ at all? Balme (1987a) has suggested
that Aristotle’s answer to this question “is the double explanation, ‘necessity’ and
‘the better.’ Given the necessary limitations of heat and environment, each ani-
mal form is the best possible: that is, the form which brings it the most func-
tional advantage, what Aristotle often calls ‘the useful’” (p. 301). The dialectical
relationship between the necessary and the useful can be seen working itself out
in what Aristotle would identify as the ergon of organic wholes, their movement
and life history. This kind of relationship between the necessary and the better
can be seen in the particular observations of these fishes.
While the habitat of the gobies and the blenny is rocky coast, they appear to
have certain micro-habitat preferences. G. cobitis is intertidal and occupies the
highest level on the shore, the splash zone; this is consistent with Gibson’s (1970)
findings of G. cobitis in Brittany. Z. ophiocephalus also occurs intertidally, but it is
generally at a lower level and in submerged aquatic vegetation. P. sanguinolentus
occurs intertidally, and is aggressive enough to occupy a habitat that overlaps with
G. cobitis. G. niger occupies the deeper, sandier habitats in the Bay of Kalloni. If
there are micro-habitat differences among the three goby species, one might sug-
gest that a slight variation in habitat that was the focus of collecting efforts might
have led to the conclusion that Aristotle’s kobios refers to G. niger for example.
Although Aristotle’s observations on kobios seem to conform most closely to
G. cobitis, it does not really matter whether kobios refers to G. niger, G. cobitis,
Z. ophiocephalus, or all three; they are close enough from both ecological and phy-
logenetic standpoints to examine the questions that motivated Aristotle and the
means by which he could have carried out his empirical observations.
Although most gobies are carnivores (Miller 1986), G. cobitis is an omnivore:
it consumes a wide variety of prey items, in addition to algae.While P. sanguino-
lentus and G. cobitis share much in terms of life history characteristics, P. sangui-
nolentus is primarily an herbivore. Differences in diet between these species
reduce the direct competition for food. The fact that P. sanguinolentus was col-
lected by means of hooks baited with shrimp further suggests that Aristotle was
referring to a blenny when speaking of the phucis (HA 591b10-16). The obser-
vations regarding the diet and sexual dimorphism of the phucis lead me to con-
clude that it is likely not a Labrid (wrasse), as Thompson (1947) suggests.
Sexual dimorphism, especially longer rays of the first dorsal fin in males, has
been observed in several European gobies (Miller 1986; Torricelli et al. 2000).
While no dimorphism was found with respect to fin rays in G. cobitis, males did
have larger first dorsal fins, a deeper caudal peduncle, and generally larger anal
fins. Dorsal and pectoral fins could be used to attract females to a nest or ward
off potential rivals. Other goby males use pectoral and caudal fins in the venti-
lation of the nest, which is a paternal care activity (Gibson and Ezzi 1978; Kova-

380 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

cic 2001). Perhaps such an activity explains the significantly larger and more
robust caudal peduncles in males of G. cobitis.
A central component of this research can be understood as an attempt to rep-
licate a historical experiment.While the fruitfulness of recreating historic exper-
iments for pedagogy has long been recognized, the practice has become increas-
ingly important to researchers in the history of science. Tweney (2004) has
defined experimental ethnography as “the attempt to understand scientific prac-
tices, both contemporary and historical, using procedures that replicate the prac-
tices under study, in an effort to more fully characterize their nature” (p. 732).
Replicating historic experiments gives researchers insight into “the impact of
sensual experience on the conceptual development of science” (Sibum 2000) or
the “microstructure of scientific thought” (Tweney 2004).
Most of the replications of historic scientific experiments are in the physical
sciences; this is one of the few that is devoted to a biological science.Why is that?
First, field biologists have to find and study organisms in nature: they can’t cre-
ate the phenomena of interest in a laboratory. Second, the objects of inquiry in
the biological sciences are elusive. I often spent days trying to get a handful of
specimens in less than ideal field conditions. Finally, the replication or reevalua-
tion of historical observations in the biological sciences must always contend
with the elusiveness of the objects of inquiry and ever-changing field conditions,
and must consider the possibility of ecological or evolutionary change. For
example, in the 2,400 years since Aristotle made his observation, the Bay of Kal-
loni might have become saltier, thus favoring one species over another.This pos-
sibility makes it even more difficult to determine whether kobios refers to
G. cobitis or G. niger, and such uncertainty must be accepted in this kind of study.
Despite these difficulties, however, biological observations can be revisited
successfully. I studied what Aristotle had to say about the kobios and the phucis,
pieced together the clues about habitats and his potential collecting locales, and
discovered the fish there more than 2,400 years after Aristotle made his obser-
vations. After observing the goby and blenny, I am now able to make a detailed
argument regarding the impact of the sensual experiences of Aristotle’s observa-
tions on the conceptual development of his thought and to grapple with more
fundamental problems of biology and philosophy, including the problem of form
and function, the generation of animals, the power of an animating principle or
soul, the question of adaptation, the effort involved in survival, and the collec-
tion and division into kinds. By reexamining the observations made of the kobios,
I also hoped to illustrate that ergon might be a way into the problem of relating
the empirically founded biological works to the other works of the corpus.
What Aristotle means exactly when he speaks of the kobios and phucis is diffi-
cult to discern, in part, because of the nature of the Aristotelian project.As Pierre
Pellegrin (1986) suggests:

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 381

Jason A. Tipton

in none of theses passages from the biological corpus, in which Aristotle sorts
animals into distinct groups, does he unveil a taxonomic project.These passages
class living things according to a multiplicity of viewpoints, sometimes anatomi-
cal, sometimes physiological or behavioral, without any of these viewpoints
gaining a privileged position, since each of these classicications is proposed
on the occasion of some particular investigation in progress. (p. 120)

Aristotle’s lack of commitment to an over-arching taxonomic project is evident

in his observations of the kobios and phucis. If one way of inquiry into animate
phenomena is to compare and examine actions and functions that are common,
those according to kind (genos) and those which are particular or according to
species (eidos), the examination of the kobios and phucis highlights the way we can
understand this. From a morphological viewpoint, they are very similar. From
the viewpoint of life history, what I claim is the ergon or function of the organic
whole, they are also very similar in most, but not all, ways.

References
Balme, D. 1987a. Aristotle’s biology was not essentialist. In Philosophical issues in Aristotle’s
biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox, 291–312. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Balme, D. 1987b. Aristotle’s use of division and differentiae. In Philosophical issues in Aris-
totle’s biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox, 69–89. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Balme, D. 1991. Aristotle: History of Animals VII–IX. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Brock, R. 2004. Aristotle on sperm competition in birds. Class Q 54(1):277–78.
Buddington, R. K., and J. M. Diamond. 1986. Aristotle revisited:The function of pyloric
caeca in fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83(20):8012–14.
Faria, C.,V.Almada, and M. Do Carmo Nunes. 1998. Patterns of agonistic behavior, shel-
ter occupation and habitat preference in juvenile Lipophrys pholis, Corypholblennius
galerita and Gobius cobitis. J Fish Biol 53(6):1263–73.
Frede, M. 1985. Substance in Aristotle’s metaphysics. In Aristotle on nature and living things:
Philosophical and historical studies, ed. A. Gotthelf, 17–26. Pittsburgh: Mathesis.
Furth, M. 1987. Aristotle’s biological universe: An overview. In Philosophical issues in Aris-
totle’s biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox, 21–52. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Gibson, R. N. 1970. Observations on the biology of the giant goby Gobius cobitis Pallas.
J Fish Biol 2:281–88.
Gibson, R. N. and I. A. Ezzi. 1978. The biology of Scottish population of Fries’ goby,
Lesueurigobius friesii. J Fish Biol 12:371–89.
Gotthelf, A. 1999. Darwin on Aristotle. J Hist Biol 32:3–30.
Kosman, L. A. 1987. Animals and other beings in Aristotle. In Philosophical issues in Aris-
totle’s biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox, 360–91, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Kovacic, M. 2001. The biology of Roule’s goby in the Kvarner area, northern Adriatic
Sea. J Fish Biol 59:795–809.

382 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

 Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World

Kroon, F. J., M. de Graaf, and N. R. Liley. 2000. Social organization and competition for
refuges and nest sites in Coryphopterus nicholsii (Gobiidae), a temperate protogynous
reef fish. Environ Biol Fishes 57(4):401–11.
Lee, H. D. P. 1985.The fishes of Lesbos again. In Aristotle on nature and living things: Philo-
sophical and historical studies, ed. A. Gotthelf, 3–8. Pittsburgh: Mathesis Publications.
Lennox, J. 1987. Divide and explain: The Posterior Analytics in practice. In Philosophical
issues in Aristotle’s biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox, 90–119, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press.
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Miller, P. J. 1986. Gobiidae. In Fishes of the Northeastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, ed.
J. C. Hureau.World Biodiversity Database, CD-ROM.
Pellegrin, P. 1986. Aristotle’s classification of animals: Biology and the conceptual unity of the
Aristotelian corpus, trans. A. Preus. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Sibum, H. O. 2000. Experimental history of science. In Museums of modern science, Nobel
Symposium 112.
Thompson, D. W. 1913. On Aristotle as a biologist. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thompson, D. W. 1947. A glossary of Greek fishes. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Torricelli, P., S. Malavasi, N. Novarini, F. Pranovi, and D. Mainardi. 2000. Elongation of
fin rays in parental males of Zosterisessor ophiocephalus (Pisces, Gobiidae). Environ
Biol Fishes 58(1):105–8.
Tweney, R. 2004. Replication and the experimental ethnography of science. J Cognition
Culture 4(3):731–58.
Zander, C. D. 1986. Blenniidae. In Fishes of the Northeastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean,
ed. J. C. Hureau.World Biodiversity Database, CD-ROM.

summer 2006 • volume 49, number 3 383

View publication stats