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 of Language" argues that the true
barnacles