Book IX
, of his Natural History, ch. 35. But as to that author and Albert the Great and other writers upon the generation of pearls, who have said that the oysters conceive them by means of the dew which they suck in, and that according as the dew is clear or cloudy the pearls also are translucent or dark, etc., etc.,—all this is a little difficult to believe; for daily observation shows that all the pearls found in the same shell are not of the same excellence, nor of the same form, the same perfection of color, nor the same size, as they would or must be if they were conceived by the dew all at one time. Besides this, in many of the islands the Indians go fishing for them in ten or twelve fathoms depth, and in some cases they are so firmly attached to the rocks in the sea that they can be wrenched off only by main strength. Would it not be difficult for them to inhale the quintessence of the air there? It seems then that it is the germ and the most noble part of the eggs of the oyster which are converted into pearls rather than any other thing; and the diversities of size, color, and other qualities, proceed from the fact that some are more advanced than others, as we see eggs in the body of the hen.[46]
The old theory of dew-formed pearls was illustrated even as late as 1684 on a medal struck in honor of Elena Piscopia of the Corraro family of Venice. This bore an oyster-shell open and receiving drops of dew, and underneath was engraved the motto “_Rore divino_” (By divine dew). Even yet one hears occasionally from out-of-the-way places—as in the instance reported by the American consul at Aden—of pearls formed from rain or dew, notwithstanding that there seems to exist absolutely no justification for it in scientific zoölogy.
Probably the most popular theory entertained from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century was that pearls were formed from the eggs of the oyster. This was intimated by Chauveton in the quotation above given, and it was also referred to by many naturalists.
In an interesting letter, dated Dec. 1, 1673, and giving as his authority the testimony of an eye-witness, “Henricus Arnoldi, an ingenious and veracious Dane,” Christopher Sandius wrote: “Pearl shells in Norway do breed in sweet waters; their shells are like mussels, but larger; the fish is like an oyster, it produces clusters of eggs; these, when ripe, are cast out and become like those that cast them; but sometimes it appears that one or two of these eggs stick fast to the side of the matrix, and are not voided with the rest. These are fed by the oyster against her will and they do grow, according to the length of time, into pearls of different bigness.”[47] This possibly hit the mark with greater accuracy than the observations of the “ingenious and veracious Dane” warranted, for he seems to have had quite a different idea as to the manner in which the pearls are “fed by the oyster against her will” from those generally entertained by naturalists at the present time.
However, Oliver Goldsmith settled the matter by declaring briefly: “Whether pearls be a disease or an accident in the animal is scarce worth enquiry.”[48] Thus it seems that notwithstanding all that had been written and the extended attention given to the subject, theory prevailed to the almost complete exclusion of practical investigation, with little intelligent advance over Topsy’s “’spect they just growed.”
Owing, doubtless, to the scarcity of pearl-bearing mollusks in their vicinities, naturalists of Europe were somewhat slow in giving attention to the origin of pearls. This is further accounted for by the fact that the gems occur more frequently in old and diseased shells than in the choice specimens which have naturally attracted the notice of conchologists.
One of the first of the original observations made on this subject was that by Rondelet, who, in 1554, advanced the idea that pearls are diseased concretions occurring in the mollusca, similar to the morbid calculi in the mammalia.[49]
The first writer to intimate the similarity in structural material or substance between pearls and the interior of the shell in which they are formed, appears to have been Anselmus de Boot (_circa_ 1600), who wrote that the pearls “are generated in the body of the creature of the same humour of which the shell is formed; ... for whenever the little creature is ill and hath not strength enough to belch up or expel this humour which sticketh in the body, it becometh the rudiments of the pearl; to which new humour, being added and assimilated into the same nature, begets a new skin, the continued addition of which generates a pearl.”[50] The Portuguese traveler, Pedro Teixeira (1608), stated: “I hold it for certain that pearls are born of and formed of the very matter of the shell and of nothing else. This is supported by the great resemblance of the pearl and the oyster-shell in substance and color. Further, whatever oyster contains pearls has the flesh unsound and almost rotten in the parts where the pearls are produced, and those oysters that have no pearls are sound and clean fleshed.”[51]
Somewhat more than one hundred years later, this theory was confirmed by investigations made by the famous physicist Réaumur (1683–1757). Microscopic examination of cross sections of pearls show that they are built up of concentric laminæ similar, except in curvature, to those forming the nacreous portion of the shell. In a paper published by the French Academy of Science in 1717,[52] Réaumur noted this condition, and suggested that pearls are misplaced pieces of organized shell, and are formed from a secretion which overflows from the shell-forming organ or from a ruptured vessel connected therewith, and that the rupture or overflow is ordinarily produced by the intrusion of some foreign or irritating substance.
Sir Edwin Arnold calls attention to this theory in his beautiful lines:
Know you, perchance, how that poor formless wretch— The Oyster—gems his shallow moonlit chalice? Where the shell irks him, or the sea-sand frets, He sheds this lovely lustre on his grief.
In pursuance of this idea, we find, in 1761, the Swedish naturalist Linnæus, “the father of natural history,” experimenting in the artificial production of pearls by the introduction of foreign bodies in the shell, and meeting with some degree of success. His discovery was rated so highly that it has been announced by some writers as the reason why the great naturalist received the patent of nobility, which is generally supposed to have been the reward for his services to science.
It seems that Linnæus’s discovery but verified the old saying that there is nothing new under the sun, for later it was announced[53] that in China—where so many inventions have originated—this idea had been put to practical account for centuries preceding, and the crafty Chinaman had succeeded in producing not only small pearly objects, but even images of Buddha, with which to awe the disciples of that deified teacher.
The method consisted in slightly opening or boring through the shell of the living mollusk and introducing against the soft body a small piece of nacre, molded metal, or other foreign matter. The irritation causes the formation of pearly layers about the foreign body, resulting, in the course of months or of years, in a pearl-like growth. While these have some value as objects of curiosity or of slight beauty, they are not choice pearls, nor for that matter were those produced by Linnæus.
It will be observed that the theory of Réaumur, and also that of Linnæus, required the intrusion of some hard substance, such as a grain of sand, a particle of shell, etc., to constitute a nucleus of the pearl; and this is the accepted explanation at the present time as to the origin of many of the baroque or irregular pearls, and likewise the pearly “blisters” and excrescences attached to the shell. But not so as to the choice or gem pearls, those beautiful symmetrical objects of great luster which are usually referred to in speaking of pearls.
Examinations of many of these have failed, except in rare instances, to reveal a foreign nucleus of sand or similar inorganic substance. In searching many fresh-water mussels, Sir Everard Home frequently met with small pearls in the ovarium, and he further noticed that these, as well as oriental pearls, when split into halves, often showed a brilliant cell in the center, about equal in size to the ova of the same mollusk. From these observations, in 1826 he deduced his “abortive ova” theory, and announced:
A pearl is formed upon the external surface of an ovum, which, having been blighted, does not pass with the others into the oviduct, but remains attached to its pedicle in the ovarium, and in the following season receives a coat of nacre at the same time that the internal surface of the shell receives its annual supply. This conclusion is verified by some pearls being spherical, others having a pyramidal form, from the pedicle having received a coat of nacre as well as the ovum.[54]
Naturalists generally accepted these conclusions, that pearls originate in pathological secretions formed, either as the result of the intrusion of hard substances, or by the encysting or covering of ova or other objects of internal origin; and there was no important cleavage of opinion until the development of the parasitic theory, as a result of the researches of the Italian naturalist Filippi, and those following his line of investigations. This theory is not severely in conflict with those of Réaumur, Linnæus, Home, etc., but relates principally to the identity of the irritating or stimulating substance which forms the nucleus of the pearl.
In examining a species of fresh-water mussel, the _Anodonta cygnea_, occurring in ponds near Turin, and especially the many small pearly formations therein, Filippi observed that these were associated with the presence of a trematode or parasitic worm, which he named _Distomum duplicatum_, and which appears to be closely allied to the parasite which causes the fatal “rot” or distemper in sheep. Under the microscope, the smallest and presumably the youngest of these pearls showed organic nuclei which appeared undoubtedly to be the remnants of the trematode. In Anodonta from other regions, which were not infested with the distoma, pearls were very rarely found by Filippi. In a paper,[55] published in 1852, containing a summary of his observations, he concluded that a leading, if not the principal, cause of pearl-formation in those mussels was the parasite above noted; and in later papers[56] he included such other forms as _Atax ypsilophorus_ within the list of parasitic agencies which might excite the pearl-forming secretions, comparing their action to that of the formation of plant-galls.
[Illustration:
Mexican pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_) with adherent pearl ]
[Illustration:
Group of encysted pearls in shell of Australian pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera maxima_) ]
American Museum of Natural History
[Illustration:
Mexican pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_) with encysted fish ]
American Museum of Natural History
[Illustration:
Group of encysted pearls (Oriental) ]
[Illustration:
Reverse of same group, showing outline of the individual pearls ]
The discovery of the parasitic origin of pearls was extended to the pearl-oysters and to other parasites by Küchenmeister[57] in 1856, by Möbius[58] in 1857, and by several other investigators. Prominent among these were E. F. Kelaart and his assistant Humbert, who, in 1859[59] disclosed the important relation which the presence of vermean parasites bears to the origin of pearls in the Ceylon oysters. These naturalists found “in addition to the Filaria and Cercaria, three other parasitical worms infesting the viscera and other parts of the pearl-oyster. We both agree that these worms play an important part in the formation of pearls.” Dr. Kelaart likewise found eggs from the ovarium of the oyster coated with nacre and forming pearls, and also suggested that the silicious internal skeletons of microscopic diatoms might possibly permeate the mantle and become the nuclei of pearls. Unfortunately, Dr. Kelaart’s investigations were terminated by his death a few months thereafter.
In 1871, Garner ascribed the occurrence of pearls in the common English mussel (_Mytilus edulis_) to the presence of distomid larvæ.[60] Giard,[61] and other French zoölogists, made similar discoveries in the case of Donax and some other bivalves. In 1901, Raphael Dubois confirmed the observations of Garner, associating the production of pearls in the edible mussels on the French coasts with the presence of larvæ of a parasite, to which he gave the name of _Distomum margaritarum_, and boldly announced: “La plus belle perle n’est donc, en définitive, que le brillant sarcophage d’un ver.”[62]
Prof. H. L. Jameson, in 1902, disclosed the relation which exists between pearls in English mussels (_Mytilus_) and the larvæ of _Distomum somateriæ_.[63] The life history of this trematode, as revealed by Dr. Jameson, is especially interesting from a biological standpoint, since it is entertained by three hosts at different times: the first host is a member of the duck family; the second is the Tapes clam (_Tapes decussatus_), or perhaps the common cockle (_Cardium edule_), which incloses the first larval stage, and the third is the edible mussel, in which the second larval stage of the parasite stimulates the formation of pearls. At the Brighton Aquarium and the Fish Hatchery at Kiel, Dr. Jameson claims to have succeeded in artificially inoculating perfectly healthy mussels with these parasites by associating them with infested mollusks, and thereby producing small pearls.
From Dr. Jameson’s interesting paper we abridge the following account of the manner in which the pearls are developed. The trematode enters _Mytilus edulis_ as a tailless cercaria, and at first may often be found between the mantle and the shell. The larvæ, after a while, enter the connective tissue of the mantle, where they come to rest, assuming a spherical form, visible to the naked eye as little yellowish spots about one half millimeter in diameter. At first the worm occupies only a space lined by connective-tissue fibrils, but soon the tissues of the host give rise to an epithelial layer, which lines the space and ultimately becomes the pearl-sac. If the trematode larva completes its maximum possible term of life, it dies, and the tissues of the body break down to form a structureless mass which retains the form of the parasite, owing to the rigid cuticle. In this mass arise one or more centers of calcification, and the precipitation of carbonate of lime goes on until the whole larva is converted into a nodule with calcospheritic structure. The granular matter surrounding the worm, if present, also undergoes calcification. The epithelium of the sac then begins to shed a cuticle of conchiolin, and from this point the growth of the pearl probably takes place on the same lines and at the same rate as the thickening of the shell.[64]
Fully as remarkable as the observations of Dr. Jameson are the results claimed by Professor Dubois in experimenting with a species of pearl-oyster (_M. vulgaris_) from the Gulf of Gabes on the coast of Tunis, where they are almost devoid of pearls, a thousand or more shells yielding on an average only one pearl. Conveying these to the coast of France in 1903, he there associated them with a species of trematode-infested mussel (_Mytilus gallo-provincialis_), and after a short period they became so infested that every three oysters yielded an average of two pearls.[65] This claim has not been without criticism; but who ever knew scientists to agree?
In the pearl-oyster of the Gambier Islands (_M. margaritifera cumingi_), Dr. L. G. Seurat found that the origin of pearls was due to irritation caused by the embryo of a worm of the genus _Tylocephalum_, the life of which is completed in the eagle-ray, a fish which feeds on the pearl-oyster.[66]
In 1903, Prof. W. A. Herdman, who, at the instance of the colonial government, and with the assistance of Mr. James Hornell, examined the pearl-oyster resources of Ceylon, announced: “We have found, as Kelaart did, that in the Ceylon pearl-oyster there are several different kinds of worms commonly occurring as parasites, and we shall, I think, be able to show that Cestodes, Trematodes, and Nematodes may all be concerned in pearl formation. Unlike the case of the European mussels, however, we find that in Ceylon the most important cause is a larval Cestode of the Tetrarhynchus form.”[67]
In his investigation of the Placuna oyster in 1905, Mr. James Hornell found that the origin of pearls was due to minute larva of the same stage and species as that which causes the pearls in the Gulf of Manar oyster.[68]
The spherical larvæ of this tapeworm sometimes occur in great abundance, and there is evidence of forty having been found in a single pearl-oyster. Mr. Hornell states that the living worm does not induce pearl formation, this occurring only when death overtakes it while in certain parts of the oyster. As a consequence, pearls are more numerous in oysters which have been long infected, where the worms are older and more liable to die. This parasitic worm has been traced from the pearl-oyster to the trigger-fishes, which eat the pearl-oysters, and thence into certain large fish-eating rays, where it becomes sexually mature and produces embryos which enter the pearl-oyster and begin a new cycle of life-phases.
It seems, therefore, that the latest conclusions of science appear entirely favorable to the parasitic theory as explaining at least one, and probably the most important, of the causes for the formation of pearls; and that some truth exists in the statement that the most beautiful pearl is only the brilliant sarcophagus of a worm. This morphological change is not peculiar to mollusks, for in most animal bodies a cyst is formed about in-wandering larvæ. Fortunately for lovers of the beautiful, in the pearl-oysters the character of the cyst-wall follows that of the interior lining of the shell, and not only simulates, but far surpasses it in luster.
While the theory that pearls are caused by the intrusion of some unusual substance has the evidence of actual demonstration in many instances, and is unquestionably true to a large extent, yet microscopic examination of some pearls suggests the theory that a foreign substance is not always essential to their formation, and that they may originate in calcareous concretions of minute size, termed “calcospherules.” As regards their origin, Professor Herdman classifies pearls into three sorts: (1) “Ampullar pearls,” which are not formed within closed sacs of the shell-secreting epithelium like the others, but lie in pockets or ampullæ of the epidermis. The nuclei may be sand-grains or any other foreign particles introduced through breaking or perforation of the shell. (2) “Muscle pearls,” which are analogous to gallstones, formed around calcospherules at or near the insertion of the muscles. And (3) “Cyst pearls,” in which concentric layers of nacre are deposited on cysts containing parasitic worms in the connective tissue of the mantle and within the soft tissues of the body.[69]
Even a particle of earth, clay, or mud may form the nucleus of a pearl. This was illustrated a few years ago in a fine button-shaped pearl, which was accidentally broken under normal usage and was found to consist of a hard lump of white clay surrounded by a relatively thin coating of nacre. More remarkable yet are the cases in which a minute fish, a crayfish, or the frustule of a diatom has formed the nucleus.
Several instances have been described by Woodward, Gunther, Putnam, Stearns, and others, where small fish have penetrated between the mantle and the shell of the mollusk, and the latter has resented the intrusion by covering the intruder with a pearly coating. In two or three instances the secretion occurred in so short a time that the fish suffered no appreciable decomposition, and its species is readily identified by observation through the nacreous layer. Among the remarkable specimens of this nature which have come under our observation are two very curious shells received in March, 1907, from the Mexican fisheries. One of these specimens shows an encysted fish, so quickly covered and so perfectly preserved that even the scales and small bones are in evidence; indeed, one can almost detect the gloss on the scales of the fish; and in the other—with a remarkable comet-like appearance—a piece of ribbed seaweed is apparently the object covered.
From the foregoing, it appears that the pearl is not a product of health associated with undisturbed conditions, but results from a derangement in the normal state of the mollusk. Unable to resist, to rid itself of the opposing evil, it exercises the powers given to it by a beneficent Creator and converts the pain into perfection, the grief into glory. Nature has many instances of the humble and lowly raised to high degree, but none more strikingly beautiful than this. One of the lowest of earth’s creatures, suffering a misfortune, furnishes a wonderful lesson upon the uses of pain and adversity by converting its affliction into a precious gem symbolical of all that is pure and beautiful. As written by a forgotten poet: “Forasmuch as the pearl is a product of life, which from an inward trouble and from a fault produces purity and perfection, it is preferred; for in nothing does God so much delight as in tenderness and lustre born of trouble and repentance.” As the great Persian poet Hafiz says:
Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe, And store with pearls the wound that brings thee woe.
IV
STRUCTURE AND FORMS
IV STRUCTURE AND FORMS OF PEARLS
“This maskellez perle that boght is dere, The joueler gef fore alle hys gold, Is lyke the reme of hevenes clere”; So sayde the fader of folde and flode, “For hit is wermlez, clene and clere, And endelez rounde and blythe of mode, And commune to all that ryghtwys were.” FOURTEENTH-CENTURY MSS. OF “PEARL,” IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
As Kadir Munshi says, “pearls have no pedigree”; their beauty is not to be traced to their origin, but exists wholly in the excellence of the surroundings in which they develop.
The pearl-bearing mollusks are luxurious creatures, and for the purpose of protecting their delicate bodies they cover the interior of their shells with a smooth lustrous material, dyed with rainbow hues, and possessing a beautiful but subdued opalescence. No matter how foul, how coral covered, or overgrown with sponges or seaweeds the exterior may be, all is clean and beautiful within. This material is nacre or mother-of-pearl. It consists ordinarily of an accumulation of extremely thin semi-transparent films or laminæ of a granular organic substance called conchiolin, with the interstices filled with calcareous matter. The nacre decreases in thickness from the hinge toward the lip of the shell, and terminates a short distance from the extreme edge.
Next to the nacre is the middle layer or the shell proper. In species of _Margaritifera_, this stratum is commonly formed of layers of calcareous prisms arranged vertically to the shell surface. External to this middle or prismatic layer is the epidermis or periostracum, the rough outer coating of varying shades, usually yellow or brown. Where the waves are rough, and the bottom hard and rocky, this covering is thick and heavy, to afford greater protection; but where the waters are smooth and gentle, and the bottom free from rocks, Nature—never working in vain—furnishes only thin sides and slight defense. As is the case with the nacre, the prismatic layer and the periostracum decrease in thickness from the hinge to the edge, and the inside lip of the shell shows the gradual union of the three superimposed layers. The two outer layers are formed by the thick edge of the mantle, the remaining portion—or nearly the entire surface—of this organ secretes the nacral layer.
Not only is the interior of the shell made lustrous and beautiful, but this tendency is exerted toward all objects that come in contact with the soft body of the mollusk, either by intrusion simply within the shell, or deeply within the organs and tissues of the animal itself. All foreign bodies—such as small parasites, diatoms, minute pebbles, etc.,—irritate the tender tissues of the mollusk, and stimulate the pearly formation which in course of time covers them. At first the nacreous covering is very thin; but with added layer after layer the thickness is enhanced, and the size of the object increases as long as it remains undisturbed and the mollusk is in healthful growth.
Chemically considered, aside from the nucleus, the structure of pearls is identical in composition with that of the nacre of the shell in which they are formed. Analyses have shown that those from the fresh-water mussels of England and Scotland, and from the pearl-oysters of Australia and of Ceylon, have nearly identical composition in the proportion of about 5.94 per cent. of organic matter, 2.34 of water, and 91.72 per cent. of carbonate of lime.[70] The specific gravity ranges from nearly 2 to about 2.75, increasing with the deposit of the nacreous coatings. The following summary by Von Hessling[71] shows the results of certain determinations of specific gravity:
Authority Specific Note Gravity
Muschenbroet 2.750 at moderate temperature
Brisson 2.684 at 14° Réaumur
Möbius 2.686 4 fine pearls, weighing 2.396 gms.
Möbius 2.650 24 pearls, weighing 6.221 gms.
Möbius 2.336 63 brown pearls from Mazatlan, weighing 4.849 gms.
Voit 2.722 Bavarian pearls, 3–3⁄16 carats, medium quality
Voit 2.616 Bavarian pearls, 3⅝ carats, finer quality
Voit 2.724 Bavarian pearls, 1¾ carats, very fine
Voit 2.578 Bavarian pearls, gray, with some luster
Voit 2.765 Bavarian pearls, brown, ranking between good & black
Voit 2.238 Bavarian pearls, poor black pearls, impure
[Illustration:
Cross section of an irregular pearl, magnified 80 diameters ]
[Illustration:
Cross sections of pearls, magnified 30 diameters ]
[Illustration:
Thin section of mother-of-pearl, magnified, showing sponge borings which traversed the pearl shell ]
[Illustration:
Structure of conch pearl produced by fracturing, magnified 80 diameters ]
The distinctive characteristic, the great beauty of a true pearl, is its luster or orient, which is a subdued iridescence, rather than the glittering brilliance of the diamond; and unless the shelly growth be lustrous it does not rank as a gem pearl, no matter how perfect its form or beautiful its color. This luster is due to the structural arrangement of the surface as well as to the quality of the material. The nacreous material forming true pearls, and likewise mother-of-pearl, is commonly deposited in irregular tenuous layers, very thin and very small in area compared with the surface of the pearl. These laminæ overlap one another, the surfaces are microscopically crumpled and corrugated, and the edges form serrated outlines. The greater the angle which the laminæ form with the surface, the closer will be these serrated outlines, and where the plane of the exterior lamina is parallel with the plane of the surface the lines are not present. This arrangement causes the waves of light to be reflected from different levels on the surface, just as in a soap bubble, and the minute prisms split the rays up into their colored constituents, producing the chromatic or iridescent effect.
The cause is wholly mechanical, and an impression of the surface made in very fine wax shows a similar iridescence. Also, if a piece of mother-of-pearl be immersed in acid until the surface lime or shelly matter is dissolved, the pellucid membrane shows the iridescence until it is so compressed that the corrugations are reduced. About two score years ago an Englishman invented steel buttons with similar minute corrugations producing pearly effect, but the manufacture was unprofitable, owing, principally, to their liability to tarnish.
In the shells of some mollusks—as the edible oysters (_Ostrea_) or the giant clam (_Tridacna_),—there is almost a total absence of the crumpled corrugated laminæ, and, consequently, there is little luster. In others the nacre is of better quality, resulting in superior orient, and it probably reaches its highest degree of perfection in the pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera_).
As the curvature of the surface of pearls is greater, and the minute striæ are more numerous, than in ordinary mother-of-pearl, it follows that the iridescence is likewise greater.
Superior nacre is more or less translucent, depending on its quality; and to the iridescence of the outer laminæ is added that of many interior ones, so that the luster is vastly increased. The position of the pearl within the shell may greatly affect the quality of the material and, consequently, the orient. The choicest are commonly found within the soft parts of the animal, and those of poorer quality are at the edges of the mantle, or within the fibers of the adductor muscle of bivalves.
The structure of pearls may be studied by examining thin cross sections under the microscope, or by transmitted polarized light. It appears that ordinarily a pearl is made up of many independent laminæ superimposed one upon another “like the layers of an onion,” or, rather, resembling the leaves near the upper part of a well formed cabbage. When subjected to sufficient heat, the laminæ separate from each other, as do shells of edible oysters and similar mollusks under like conditions. When broken by a hammer, a pearl may exhibit this laminated formation. If not split directly through the center, the central section may retain the spherical form; and as this commonly remains attached to one of the parts, its concave impression appears in the other portion of the broken pearl. The outer laminæ of many pearls may be removed with a fair prospect of finding a good subjacent surface, and this may be continued until the size is greatly reduced. These laminæ are not always similar in color or luster.
However, not all pearls are laminated in this manner. Instead of superimposed layers, some of them exhibit a crystalline form, composed of beautiful prismatic crystals radiating from the center to the circumference. In at least one oriental pearl examined, these crystals were in well defined arcs, and were further separated into concentric rings of different degrees of thickness, depth of color, and distance apart. Another specimen—a Scotch pearl—combined in separate layers both the laminated form and the crystalline structure.
Dr. Harley points out that some crystalline pearls apparently originate in mere coalescences of mineral particles, rather than in well defined nuclei.[72] Microscopic sections of crystalline pearls convey the idea that the prisms branch and interlace with one another, and also that in some instances they are of fusiform shape. However, these appearances seem to be due simply to the cross sections having cut the prisms at different angles.
Pearls showing these types were exhibited at a meeting of the Royal Society of London, June 8, 1887. That exhibit also contained a section of a west Australian pearl of curiously complex crystalline formation; instead of one central starting-point, it had more than a dozen scattered about, from which the crystalline prisms radiated in all directions.
Since the three superimposed layers of the shell are secreted by separate parts of the mantle, _viz._, the nacre by the general surface, the prismatic layer by the inner edge, and the epidermis by the outer edge, it follows that if a pearl in course of formation is moved from one of these distinctive portions of the palial organ to another, the nature of its laminæ changes. Thus, if a pearl formed on the broad surface of the mantle is moved in some way to the inner edge of that organ, it may be covered with a prismatic layer; if then moved to the outer edge it may receive a lamina of epidermis, and then by changing again to the broad surface of the mantle it receives further coats of nacre.
[Illustration:
Pearls from common clam (_Venus mercenaria_) of eastern coast of America ]
[Illustration:
Pearl “nuggets” from the Mississippi Valley ]
[Illustration:
Wing pearls from the Mississippi Valley ]
[Illustration:
Dog-tooth pearls from the Mississippi Valley ]
The structure of pearls from univalve mollusks, such as the conch, the abalone, etc., as well as those from some bivalves, as the Pinna, for instance, differs from that of the true pearls formed in species of Margaritifera. Instead of the alternate layers of conchiolin and of carbonate of lime, many of these have an alveolar structure. When greatly magnified, the surface of a Pinna pearl appears to be formed of very small polygones, which, as decalcification shows, are the bases of small pyramids radiating from the nucleus. The walls of these pyramids are formed of conchiolin, and they are filled with carbonate of lime of a prismatic crystalline structure. This is simply a modification of the parallel laminæ in the Margaritifera pearls, for, as Dubois points out, in some sections we can see portions where the alveolar formation has proceeded for a time coincidentally with the lamellar form.
Pearls are affected by acids and fetid gases, and may be calcined on exposure to heat. Their solubility in vinegar was referred to by the Roman architect Vitruvius (“De Architectura,” L. viii. c. 3) and also by Pausanias, a Greek geographer in the second century (“Hellados Periegesis,” L. viii, c. 18); but it seems that there could be little foundation for Pliny’s well-known anecdote in which Cleopatra is credited with dissolving a magnificent pearl in vinegar and drinking it—“the ransom of a kingdom at a draught”—to the health of her lover Antony.[73] It is no more easy to dissolve a pearl in vinegar than it is to dissolve a pearl-button—for the composition is similar, and one may easily experiment for himself as to the difficulty in doing this. Not only does it take many days to dissolve in cold vinegar the mineral elements of a pearl of fair size, but even with boiling vinegar it requires several hours to extract the mineral matter from one four or five grains in weight, the acid penetrating to the interior very slowly. And in neither case can the pearl be made to disappear, for even after the carbonate of lime has dissolved, the organic matrix of animal matter—which is insoluble in vinegar—retains almost the identical shape, size, and appearance as before. If the pearl is first pulverized, it becomes readily soluble in vinegar, and might be thus drunk as a lover’s potion, but it would scarcely prove a _bonne bouche_.
Pearls assume an almost infinite variety of forms, due largely to the shapes of the nuclei, and also to their positions within the mollusk. The most usual—and, fortunately, also the most valuable—is the spherical, resulting from a very minute or a round body as a nucleus and the uniform addition of nacre on all sides. Of course, spherical pearls can result only where they are quite free from other hard substances; consequently they originate only in the soft parts of the mollusk and not by the fixation of some nucleus to the interior surface of the shell.
The perfectly spherical pearls range in weight from a small fraction of a grain to three hundred grains or more, but it is very, very rare that one of choice luster weighs more than one hundred grains. The largest of which we have any specific information was that among the French crown jewels as early as the time of Napoleon, an egg-shaped pearl, weighing 337 grains. The largest pearl known to Pliny in the first century A.D. weighed “half a Roman ounce and one scruple over,” or 234½ grains Troy. These very large ones, weighing in excess of one hundred grains, are called “paragons.” The small pearls—weighing less than half a grain each—are known as “seed-pearls.” The very small ones, weighing less than 1⁄25 of a grain, are called “dust-pearls.” These are too small to be of economic value as ornaments.
Slight departures from the perfect sphere, result in egg shapes, pear shapes, drop shapes, pendeloque, button shapes, etc. Some of these are valued quite as highly at the present time as the spherical pearls, and many of the most highly prized pearls in the world are of other than spherical form. Indeed, pearls of this kind are found of larger size than the perfectly round pearls. The egg-shaped pearl,[74] called “la Régente,”—one of the French crown jewels sold in May, 1887—weighed, as stated above, 337 grains. The great pear pearl described by Tavernier—“the largest ever discovered”—weighed about 500 grains. A button pearl received from Panama in 1906 weighed 216 grains.
Wider departures from the spherical form result in cylindrical, conical, top-shaped, etc. Some pearls present the appearance of having been turned in a lathe with intricate tooling. Remarkable examples of these “turned pearls” have been found, competing in their circular perfection with the best work of a jeweler’s lathe.
Many standard varieties of non-spherical, but normally shaped pearls, are recognized by the fishermen and the jewelers. For instance, in the nomenclature of the American fishermen, _bouton_, or button pearls are divided into “haystacks” and “turtle-backs,” according to the height of the projection. Also, certain imperfections result in distinguishing names: “bird’s-eye” refers to a pearl having a little imperfection on the best surface; “ring-arounds” have a dark or discolored ring about them; and “strawberries” have numerous minute projections on the surface.
During its growth, a spherical pearl may come in contact with a foreign body, such as grit or a vegetable film, and the additional nacral layers envelop the adjacent matter until it is entirely concealed within the pearl, its position being recognized only by the excrescence on one side, and, with continued increase in size, even this may be almost overcome.
[Illustration:
ACTUAL SIZES OF PEARLS FROM ⅛ GRAIN TO 160 GRAINS ]
Sometimes double, triple, or multiple pearls are formed; each of these may have a separate nucleus and grow independently for a time until they adjoin each other; continuing to grow, they become so united as to form a connected mass. The “Southern Cross” is a remarkable example of this. It appears to consist of seven nearly spherical pearls attached to one another in a straight line, and one projecting from each side of the second in the row, thus forming a Roman cross.[75]
A few years ago, near Sharks Bay, on the coast of western Australia, a cluster was found containing about 150 pearls closely compacted. This cluster measured about one and a half inches in length, three quarters of an inch in breadth, and half an inch in thickness.
When a growing pearl is very near to the nacreous lining of the shell, the pressure between the two hard substances results in a rupture of the pearl-forming sac and the epithelial layer of the shell, and the pearl comes in actual contact with the nacre. The pearl gradually becomes attached to the shell, and the under portion is prevented from growing further; the upper or exposed surface receives other layers, resulting in the formation of a _bouton_. As the shell around the pearl continues to grow, it gradually closes about, and almost wholly conceals the pearl. Since it is constantly wasting away on the exterior surface as it grows on the interior, it follows that in time the shell passes the pearl quite through to the outside, where it rapidly decays. Thus the oyster virtually forces the annoying intruder directly through the wall of its house instead of by way of the open door, and magically closes the breach with its marvelous masonry.
These embedded pearls are generally faulty and of diminished luster, but in the aggregate, large quantities of imperfect ones, and especially half and quarter pearls, are secured in this manner. Sometimes—particularly in the Australian fisheries—large pearls are thus found, weighing twenty, forty, sixty, and even eighty grains; and when the faulty outside layers of nacre are removed, a subjacent surface of fine luster may possibly be revealed. In bivalves, these adherent pearls are commonly in the deep or lower valve, except in those unusual cases where the mollusks have been lying in a reverse position. At the fisheries, the surfaces of the shells are carefully inspected for evidence of pearly nodules, and these are broken open in search for encysted objects. Cutters of mother-of-pearl occasionally find embedded pearls of this kind which have escaped the vigilant eyes of the fishermen.
We read of an instance in an important paper treating of the jeweling trade of Birmingham: “A few years since [the paper was written in 1866] a small lot of shells was brought to Birmingham, which either from ignorance or mistake had not been cleared of the pearls at the fishery. A considerable number were found and sold, and one especially was sold by the man who had bought the shell for working into buttons, for £40. The purchaser, we believe, resold the same for a profit of £160; and we have heard that it was afterward held in Paris for sale at £800.”
A choice gem which was found in New York, in October, 1905, in an Australian shell, sold finally for $1200.
The intrusion and continued presence of grains of sand or similar material between the mantle and the shell causes the formation of nacre over the foreign body, resulting in a _chicot_ (blister pearl), or possibly a quarter or a half-pearl. The growth of a _chicot_ sometimes results from the mollusk covering a choice pearl which has become loosened from the soft tissues and adheres to the shell, as above cited. Hence, it is sometimes desirable to break a _chicot_ to secure its more valuable inclosure. In the account of his interesting pearling experiences on the Australian coast, Henry Taunton states: “During the first season’s shelling at Roebuck Bay, we came across an old worm-eaten shell containing a large blister, which was removed in the usual manner by punching a ring of minute holes around its base; a slight tap was then sufficient to detach it. For many weeks it was untouched, no one caring to risk opening it, for if filled with black ooze, which is frequently the case, it would be of little value. At last, baffled in his attempt to solve the problem, and emboldened by an overdose of ‘square face,’ the skipper gave it a smart blow with a hammer, which cracked it open, and out rolled a huge pearl, nearly perfect, and weighing eighty grains. A few specks and discolorations were removed by a skilful ‘pearl-faker,’ and it was sold in London for £1500.”[76]
Blister pearls are also caused by the defensive or protective action of the mollusk in resisting the intrusion of some animal, as a boring sponge or a burrowing worm, which has begun to penetrate the outer layers of the shell. This stimulation causes the mollusk to pile nacreous material upon the spot, thus making a substantial mound closely resembling a segment of a large pearl. This walling-out of intruders is not the result of intelligent forethought or of instinct, analogous to the repairing of a damaged web by a spider, or the retunneling of a collapsed gallery by ants; it is a pathological rather than an intelligent action.
[Illustration:
BROOCHES MADE OF PETAL, DOG-TOOTH, AND WING PEARLS
From the Upper Mississippi Valley ]
When the nucleus of a pearl is large and very irregular, it necessarily follows that the deposited nacre roughly assumes the irregular outline of the inclosed object. This is strikingly shown in pearls covering a minute fish, a crayfish, or a small crab. Several specimens have been found in which the species could be identified by examination through the nacreous coating.
In the American Unios there is a strong tendency to produce elongated pearls near the hinge of the shell, which are consequently known as “hinge pearls.” The occurrence and form of these suggest that their origin may not be due to nuclei, but that they result from an excess of carbonate of lime in the water, and that the animal stores a surplus of nacre in this convenient form. There are several standard forms of these hinge pearls. Many are elongated or dog-toothed, some are hammer-shaped, others resemble the wings of birds, the petals of flowers, the bodies of fish, and various other objects. A large percentage of the pearls found in Unios of the Mississippi Valley are of these types.
Some irregular pearls or baroques are very large, weighing an ounce or more. A well-known example is the Hope pearl, described on page 463, which weighs three ounces. These monster pearls sometimes assume odd shapes, such as clasped hands, the body of a man, lion, or other animal, etc.
Although baroques may have a pearly luster, they are not highly prized unless unusually attractive, and they have little permanent value, apart from their estimation in the eyes of admirers of the curious and unique. They are used largely in _l’art nouveau_, and in forming odd and fanciful objects of jewelry, the designer taking advantage of the resemblance which they bear to common objects of every-day life, and by additions of gold and other ornaments completing the form which nature had merely suggested.
Some remarkable examples of baroque mountings have been produced, and a few are to be found in most of the large pearl collections. In a single case in the Imperial Treasury at Vienna are baroques forming the principal parts or figures of a horse, stag, lamb, tortoise, lizard, cock, dragon, butterfly, gondola, hippopotamus, female bust, and three mermaids. Other well-known collections are those of the royal family of Saxony in the Grüne Gewölbe at Dresden; those in the Palace of Rosenberg at Copenhagen; in the Waddesden (Rothschild) collection of the British Museum; among the jewels in the Louvre in Paris; with the treasures of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice; and in the museum of the University of Moscow.
A remarkable pearl-like ornament more common in Asia than in the Occident, is the _coque de perle_, which is an oval section of the globose whorl of the Indian nautilus. The exterior or convex surface is highly lustrous, but the material is very thin. It is commonly provided with a suitable filling or backing of putty or cement to impart solidity, and is used like a blister pearl. Sometimes two perfectly matched _coques de perle_ are filled and cemented together, giving the appearance of an abnormally large oblong or nearly spherical pearl.
The color of pearls has no connection with the luster. In general it is the same as that of the shell in which they are formed. Black pearls are found in the black shells of Mexico, and pink pearls in the pink-hued _Strombus_ of the Bahamas. Ceylon pearls are seldom of any other color than white, and Sharks Bays are almost invariably quite yellow or straw-colored, while those of Venezuela are commonly yellowish tinged. But from other localities, pearls simulate every tint of the rainbow, as well as white and black. The most common, as well as the most desirable ordinarily, is white, or rather, silvery or moonlight glint,—“_la gran Margherita_,” as Dante calls it; but yellow, pink, and black are numerous. They may also be piebald—a portion white and the rest pink or brown or black. Some years ago there was on the market a large bean-shaped pearl of great luster, one half of which was white and the other quite black, the dividing-line being sharply defined in the plane of the greatest circumference. The pearls from Mexico, the South Sea islands, and the American rivers are especially noted for their great variety of coloration, covering every known tint and shade, and requiring such a master as Théophile Gautier to do justice to them.
Many theories have been advanced to explain the coloration of pearls. When the old idea of dew formation prevailed, it was considered that white pearls were formed in fair weather, and the dark ones when the weather was cloudy. It was further considered that the color was influenced by the depth of the water in which they grew: that in deep water they were white, but where it was so shallow that the sunlight easily penetrated, the pearls were more likely to be dark in color. Tavernier curiously explained that the black pearls of Panama and Mexico owed their color to the black mud in which the pearl-oysters of those localities lived, and that Persian Gulf pearls were more inclined to yellow than those of Ceylon, owing to the greater putrefaction of the flesh before they were removed therefrom.[77] Two centuries ago the color of a pearl was attributed to that of the central nucleus, and it was concluded that if the nucleus was dark, the pearl would be of a similar hue.[78] This theory has also been upset, for pearls are found white on the exterior and quite dark within, and also with these conditions reversed.
[Illustration:
GRAY PEARLS IN THE POSSESSION OF AN AMERICAN LADY AND BROOCH FROM TIFFANY & CO.’S EXHIBIT, PARIS EXPOSITION, 1900 ]
The color of a pearl is determined by that of the conchiolin, as appears from its remaining unchanged after decalcification. While generally it is the same as that of the mother-of-pearl at the corresponding point of the shell in which it is formed, there are many exceptions to this, and the reasons for the varying tints and colors are probably to be found in the changes in position of the pearl, the ingredients of the water, the health of the mollusk, accidents of various kinds, etc. These factors will be referred to later in discussing the pearls from different mollusks and regions; but in general it is no more easy to explain the colors of pearls than it is to say why one rose is white and another is yellow.
Medieval writers had much to say regarding unripe or immature pearls, likening them to eggs in the body of a hen, which follow a uniform rate of growth; and this idea is not entirely absent even in contemporaneous writings. However, it is an interesting fact that the humble mollusks, like the five wise virgins with prepared lamps, keep their gems perfect in beauty and luster at all times. It matters not whether the pearl be removed when it is only the size of a pinhead or not until it reaches that of a marble, it is at all times a complete, a ripe, a perfect pearl, and the largest surpasses the smallest only in the characteristics and properties which are incidental to size. Imparting perfection and completion every day, every moment, the mollusk utilizes the added time simply in enlarging its beautiful work.
Although art has made wonderful progress in that direction, the pearl, like truth, is not easily imitated. There is as much difference between the ubiquitous imitations and the perfect gem as there is between a chromolithograph and a silvery Corot, or between the effects of cosmetics and the freshness of youth. While to the unskilled, or under superficial inspection, the false has some of the properties of the genuine, it is only necessary to place them side by side to make the difference apparent. However clever the imitation may be in color, in form, and in density, it always lacks in richness, in sweetness, and in blended iridescence.
V
SOURCES OF PEARLS
V SOURCES OF PEARLS
Rich honesty dwells like a miser, sir, in a poor house, as your pearl in your foul oyster.
_As You Like It_, Act V, sc. 4.
In geographic range, the sources of pearls are widely distributed, each one of the six continents yielding its quota; but the places where profitable fisheries are prosecuted are restricted in area. First in point of value, and possibly of antiquity also, are the fisheries of the Persian Gulf, giving employment ordinarily to thirty thousand or more divers. The yield in the likewise ancient fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar is uncertain, but sometimes remarkably large. The Red Sea resources are now of slight importance compared with their extent in the time of the Ptolemies. Other Asiatic fisheries are in the Gulf of Aden, about Mergui Archipelago, on the coast of China, Japan, Korea, and Siam, and also in the rivers of China, Manchuria, and Siberia.
Aside from those produced in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the pearl fisheries of Africa are of small extent. Some reefs exist on the lower coast of the German East African territory and also in Portuguese East Africa, but they have not been thoroughly exploited.
In most of the inshore waters of Australasia pearls may be secured; the fisheries are most extensive on the northern coast of Australia, in the Sulu Archipelago, and about the Dutch East Indies. Tuamotu Archipelago, Gambier, Fiji, and Penrhyn are prominent in the South Pacific Ocean.
In the seas of Europe few pearls have been found, but the rivers have yielded many; and although the resources have been greatly impaired, many beautiful gems are yet found there.
South America contributes the important reefs on the coast of Venezuela—the land of unrest and revolutions, whose fisheries were first exploited by Columbus. Other South American countries in which pearls are collected are Panama, Ecuador, Peru, etc. In North America, pearls are found in the pearl-oyster of the Gulf of California, the abalone of the Pacific coast, the queen conch of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Unios of most of the rivers, especially those of the Mississippi Valley.
Since pearly concretions partake of the characteristics of the shell within which they are formed, it follows that practically all species of mollusks whose shells have a well-developed nacreous lining yield pearls to a greater or less extent. But the number of these species is relatively small. They belong chiefly to the _Margaritiferæ_, or pearl-oyster family of the sea, and to the _Unionidæ_, or family of fresh-water mussels. Pearls occur also in some univalves, but not so abundantly as in bivalves of the families mentioned. Broadly stated, we may hope to find pearls within any mollusk whose shell possesses a nacreous surface; and it is useless to search for them in shells whose interior is dull and opaque, such as the edible oyster for instance.
The great bulk of the pearls on the market, and likewise those of the highest quality, are from the _Margaritiferæ_, which are widely distributed about tropical waters. Although these mollusks are spoken of as pearl-oysters, they are not related in any way to the edible oysters (_Ostrea_) of America and Europe.[79] The flesh is fat and glutinous, and so rank in flavor as to be almost unfit for food, although eaten at times by the poorer fishermen in lieu of better fare. The origin of the name is doubtless due to the fact that in the somewhat circular form of the shell they resemble oysters rather than the elongated mussels of Europe, to which they are more nearly related in anatomy. Also in that—like their namesakes—they are monomyarian, having only one adductor muscle.
The two valves or sides of the pearl-oyster shell are nearly similar in shape and almost equal in size; whereas in the edible oysters one valve is thin and somewhat flat, while the other is thicker, larger, and highly convex. In the latter, also, the hinge, or umbo, is an angular beak; but in the pearl-oysters the umbo is prolonged by so-called ears or wings into a straight line the length of which is nearly equal to the breadth of the shell.
The byssus, or bunch of fibers, by which pearl-oysters attach themselves to the bottom indicates their relationship to the mussels. The possession of a small foot and somewhat extended migratory powers—at least in the first years of growth—also distinguish them from the sedentary edible oysters. But from an economic point of view, the principal difference is the possession of a thick, nacreous, interior lining in the shells of pearl-oysters, which is wholly lacking in the edible species. Like their namesakes, the pearl-oysters are exceedingly fertile, a single specimen numbering its annual increase by millions.
Commercially considered, the pearl-oysters are roughly divisible into two groups, (1) those fished exclusively for the pearls which they contain, and (2) those whose shells are so thick as to give them sufficient value to warrant their capture independently of the yield of pearls. The best examples of the first group are the pearl-oysters of Ceylon and of Venezuela, and to a less extent those of the Persian Gulf, the coast of Japan, and of Sharks Bay, on the Australian coast. Of the second group, the pearl-oysters of Torres Straits and of the Malay Archipelago are the most prominent members. Between these two groups are the many species and varieties whose shells and pearls are more evenly divided with respect to value, including those of Mexico, Panama, the Red Sea, the South Sea islands, etc.
Some conchologists recognize a large number of species of _Margaritiferæ_, while other authorities consider many of these as local variations of the same species. There is much difference in the size, color, and markings of the shells in different localities, owing to varying geographical and physical conditions. The distinction of species and the nomenclature herein adopted are those of Dr. H. L. Jameson, who has recently revised and rearranged the collection of shells belonging to this family in the British Museum of Natural History,[80] and to whom we are indebted for descriptive notes relative to several of the species.
The greatest pearl-producer in the family of pearl-oysters is the _Margaritifera vulgaris_ of the Gulf of Manaar and the Persian Gulf, and to a much less extent of the Red Sea. It occurs in various other inshore waters of the Indian Ocean, and about the Malay Archipelago and the coast of Australia and New Guinea, although it is not the principal pearl-oyster of those waters. An interesting account of its immigration into the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal was given by Vassel in 1896.[81]
This species is quite small, averaging two and a half inches in diameter in Ceylon waters, and somewhat more in the Persian Gulf, whence large quantities of the shell are exported under the name of “Lingah shell.” The Ceylon variety has the nacreous lining almost uniformly white over the entire surface, only the lip having a slightly pinkish ground color. The exterior is marked by seven or eight reddish brown radial bands on a pale yellow ground. In addition to its greater size, the Persian variety is darker, and the lip of the shell has a reddish tinge.
For centuries the _Margaritifera vulgaris_ has sustained the great pearl fisheries of Ceylon, India, and Persia, and at present yields the bulk of pearls on the market, especially the seed-pearls and also those of medium size. It produces relatively few large ones, rarely exceeding twelve grains in weight. These pearls are commonly silvery white, and for their size command the highest prices, because of their beautiful form and superior luster. Excepting the Venezuelan species, this is the only pearl-oyster which at present supports extensive fisheries exclusively for pearls; in the fisheries for all other species the value of the shells furnishes considerable revenue, and in some localities this represents several times as much as the income from the pearls.
Ranking next to _Margaritifera vulgaris_ in extent of pearl production is the _Margaritifera margaritifera_, which is widely distributed about the tropical inshore waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans. It is very much larger than the Lingah oyster, good specimens measuring seven or eight inches in diameter, and the nacreous interior is usually of a darker color. In addition to its yield of pearls, the shell of this species is of value in the mother-of-pearl trade, and contributes largely to the economic results of the fisheries. Indeed, in several regions the shell is of more value than the pearls, which represent only an incidental yield. As Jameson notes, the color and markings of the shell, though extremely variable, generally suffice to distinguish this species. The ground color of the exterior ranges through various shades from yellowish brown to very dark brown. Its characteristic markings consist of from ten to eighteen radial rows of white and yellow spots, running from the umbo, or hinge, to the margin.
Several varieties of _Margaritifera margaritifera_ are recognized. The type species occurs along the north coast of Australia, from Brisbane on the east to Sharks Bay on the west; on the New Guinea coast; at Formosa; and about many of the islands of the Pacific. The well-known “black lip shell” of Australian waters is of this species; it shows a greenish black on the margin of the nacre. The yield of this is very small compared with that of the large pearl-oyster of Australia.
[Illustration:
SHELL OF PEARL-OYSTER WITH ATTACHED PEARL
(_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_)
From Costa Rica ]
The _Margaritifera margaritifera_ occurs on the eastern coast of Arabia in two varieties, which differ somewhat from the type species. These have been designated by Jameson as _M. margaritifera persica_ and _M. margaritifera erythræensis_. These are much larger than the Lingah shell of the Persian Gulf, but are smaller than the Australian species. The percentage of pearls in them is less than in the Lingah species, but from a commercial point of view this is to some extent offset by the greater value of the shell. The _M. m. persica_ is more numerous in the gulf than the _M. m. erythræensis_, and large quantities of the shell are marketed in Europe. Formerly the shipments were made principally by way of Bombay, hence the shell is known in the mother-of-pearl trade as “Bombay shell.” The exterior is of a light grayish or greenish brown color, with yellowish white radial bands. The nacre has a slightly roseate tint, and the margin is greenish yellow. The pearls found herein are more yellowish in color and attain a larger size than those from the Lingah oyster.
The _M. m. erythræensis_ occurs also in the Red Sea and along the shores of the Arabian Sea. Among mother-of-pearl dealers it is known as “Egyptian shell” or “Alexandria shell,” owing to the fact that prior to the opening of the Suez Canal shipments were commonly made by way of Alexandria. The color of the nacre is darker than that of its related variety in the Persian Gulf. In the trade, three grades of this shell are recognized, classed according to the shade of color. The lightest comes from Massowah and near the southern end of the Red Sea, and the darkest from farther north, in the vicinity of Jiddah and Suakim.
The islands of the southern Pacific, and of eastern Polynesia especially, yield another variety of _M. margaritifera_, to which the name _M. m. cumingi_ has been given. The nacre is of a dark metallic green, and in the mother-of-pearl trade the shell is designated as “black-edged.” It attains a large size, only slightly smaller than the large Australian species; many individual specimens measure ten inches in diameter, and weigh six or seven pounds for the two valves. Belonging to this variety are those oysters whose shells are known in the markets of Europe and America as “Tahiti,” “Gambier,” and “Auckland” shells, the name designating the port of shipment.
Yet another subspecies, the _M. m. mazatlanica_, occurs on the coasts of Panama and Mexico, and especially in the Gulf of California. This is likewise green-edged, and the exterior color is yellow or light brown. This shell has been marketed in quantities since 1850, and is known in the mother-of-pearl trade as “Panama shell.” It is smaller than the Australian species, specimens rarely exceeding eight inches in diameter. It yields a large percentage of the black pearls that have been so fashionable in the last fifty years.
Since 1870, the largest pearls have been found mainly in a very large species of pearl-oyster, _Margaritifera maxima_, obtained off the north and west coasts of Australia, among the Sulu Islands, and elsewhere in the Malay Archipelago. In the fisheries for this species, the mother-of-pearl is the principal object sought, and the pearls are obtained incidentally. It is the largest of all the members of this family, reaching in exceptional cases twelve or thirteen inches in diameter, and weighing upward of twelve pounds; while the Ceylon oyster rarely exceeds four ounces in weight. So marked is this difference, that the Australian species is often designated the “mother-of-pearl oyster,” and the Ceylon species the “pearl-oyster.” Jameson notes that it differs from the _Margaritifera margaritifera_, its nearest competitor in size, in its much longer hinge, its shape, its lesser convexity, and in its color and markings. As described by him, the color ranges from pale yellowish brown to deep brown, with traces of radial markings of dark brown, green, or red in the umbonal area. In its marginal region, the shell is marked by a series of circumferential lines about one third of a millimeter apart.
Several geographical varieties of this species are recognized in the mother-of-pearl trade, differing principally in the coloring of the interior surface. The chief commercial varieties are “Sydney” or “Queensland,” “Port Darwin,” “West Australian,” “New Guinea,” “Manila,” “Macassar,” and “Mergui.” The nacre of those from the Australian coast is almost uniformly silvery white. That of the “Manila shell” is characterized by a broad golden border surrounding the silvery white nacre. The “Macassar shell” lacks the golden border of the “Manila shell,” and is similar in its uniform whiteness to the “Sydney shell,” but its iridescence is much greater.
The _Margaritifera carcharium_, from Sharks Bay, on the coast of Australia, yields yellow pearls and small quantities of mother-of-pearl. This species is small—three or four inches in diameter. The color is grayish or greenish yellow, with several somewhat indistinct radial bands of brownish green. The nacre has a yellowish green tint, with a margin of pale yellow, with brown markings.
In the West Indies and on the Atlantic coast of tropical America, especially the coast of Venezuela, occurs the _Margaritifera radiata_. This species is quite small, and seems to be closely allied to the Ceylon oyster. Like the latter, the nacreous interior is rich and brilliant, but owing to its small size, the shell is wholly valueless as mother-of-pearl. The principal and almost the only fishery for this species is on the Venezuelan coast, in the vicinity of Margarita Island, the islands of Cubagua, and Coche.
The coast of Japan yields the _Margaritifera martensi_, which occurs among the numerous islands in the southern part of the empire, but does not extend beyond 40° north latitude. This species is likewise small, and closely resembles the pearl-oyster of Ceylon, from which it differs principally in coloration. As noted by Jameson, brown and white predominate in the exterior coloring, and the interior of the lip is marbled with yellow ocher and chocolate brown, instead of pink, as in the Ceylon shell.
There are numerous other species of pearl-oysters, but they are of slight economic importance, and do not support fisheries of value.
As only a small percentage of the individual mollusks contain pearls, it follows that vast quantities are destroyed without any return whatever, and handling them merely adds to the expense of the industry, as well as reduces the resources of the reefs. This could be obviated if it were possible, without opening them, to determine the individual mollusks containing pearls.
Among the several methods proposed for this purpose, especially interesting is the use of X-rays, which was suggested by Raphael Dubois of Lyons, France, in 1901.[82] The shells of some pearl-oysters—those of Ceylon and of Venezuela for instance—are relatively thin, and it was thought that by the means of the rays the presence of pearls could be ascertained, and non-pearl-bearers could be saved from opening, and be returned to the reefs without injury. Although the calcareous shell
## partly interrupts the radiations, it is not difficult to recognize the
presence of large pearls.
The theory has never been found practical in application, owing largely to the rough and irregular exterior of the shell and the small size of the pearls. The presence of the larger pearls may be ascertained by this method; but it is exceedingly probable that a very large percentage of the small ones, and especially the seed-pearls, would be overlooked. Furthermore, if in their sixth year oysters contain no pearls, the probability of appearance therein later is very small, and little benefit would result from their return to the water. As to saving the trouble of opening the non-pearl-bearing mollusks, labor in the pearling regions is usually inexpensive, and this cost is far more than offset by the reasonable certainty of securing practically all the small as well as the large pearls by the present method of operation. Owing to the greater thickness and the economic value of the large pearl-oysters—as those of Australia or of Mexico, for instance—the application of X-rays to them is obviously impractical. However, when pearl-oyster culture becomes a highly developed industry, with personal ownership in those mollusks returned to the water, some method such as this might be of great value.
Pearls are yielded by various species of _Unionidæ_ or _Naiades_ occurring in the rivers of America, Scotland, Saxony, Bavaria, Norway, Sweden, Russia, France, China, etc. These mollusks exist exclusively in the fresh-water streams, lakes, and ponds, and quickly die when submerged in salt water. The _Unionidæ_ are of particular interest in America, as it is here that this group is most abundant, and nearly every stream east of the Rocky Mountains contains more or less of them. The Mississippi basin abounds in Unios, or “clams,” as they are known to the fishermen of that region, and furnishes about 400 of the 1000 recognized species of this important family.
The Unios are most abundant in clear, running water, where the bottom is gravelly or sandy. The interiors of the shells are iridescent, and vary greatly in tint, exhibiting many delicate shades of color from silvery white to straw color, pink, purple, brown, etc.
About five hundred species of American fresh-water mussels have been recognized by conchologists. Many of these differ from one another so very slightly that they are scarcely distinguishable from an examination of the shells themselves, or even from the descriptions, and a detailed index to the complete list is of little economic importance. The professional fishermen and the shell-buyers take the trouble to name only the species with which they deal, which includes only about twenty-five species, all of which are margaritiferous, though some to a greater extent than others. In the pearling regions a popular nomenclature exists, the names given by the fishermen having reference to the shape, color, etc.
The niggerhead (_Quadrula ebena_) is the most numerous in the Mississippi, and it is extensively used in button manufacture. The thick shell of this species is almost round, with a black outer surface and a pearly white interior. At maturity it averages about four inches in diameter and four ounces in weight. Owing to its uniform whiteness and the flatness of its surface, it is well adapted to button manufacture, and for this purpose more than twenty thousand tons are taken in the Mississippi Valley every year. When the fishery originated, the niggerhead was very abundant in some places, and especially between La Crosse and Burlington. From a single bed near New Boston, Illinois, measuring about 200 acres in area, 7500 tons, or about 70,000,000 individual shells, were removed in three years. In 1897, a bed of 320 acres near Muscatine furnished 500 tons, or about 4,750,000 shells. This species occasionally yields valuable pearls.
Two species of Unios, _Quadrula undulata_ and _Q. plicata_, are known among the fishermen as “three-ridges.” The former is also known as the “blue-point” from the fact that the sharp edge is usually tinged faint blue on the inside. Although not the best for button manufacture, the shells yield the greatest number of pearls.
[Illustration:
PINNA OR WING SHELL (_Pinna seminuda_)
One third natural size ]
[Illustration:
PEARL-OYSTER OF CEYLON (_Margaritifera vulgaris_)
Natural size ]
A species somewhat similar to the niggerhead is the bullhead (_Pleurobema æsopus_). This shell is thick and opaque, the nacre is not so iridescent as that of the niggerhead, nor does it yield pearls of such good quality. These two species are not evenly distributed over the bottom of the streams, but occur in great patches or beds, sometimes several feet in thickness and covering many hundreds of acres. Some of the beds are several miles in length, and they may be separated by twenty or thirty miles in which the mollusks are so scarce that profitable fishing can not be made; but usually the reefs are smaller and more closely situated.
The sand shells (_Lampsilis_)—of which there are several species—do not occur in large beds, but are scattered over the sandy beaches and sloping mud-banks. In shape they are narrow and long, adults measuring five or six inches in length. Owing to the small waste in cutting, due to uniformity in thickness, these shells are sold to button manufacturers for more than the niggerhead, which in turn is more valuable than the bullhead.
The buckhorn (_Tritigonia verrucosa_) is very long and narrow; on the dark brown exterior it is rough, as is the horn from which it takes its name, while the interior shows a beautiful display of colors. This is not found in beds, but lies scattered among other species. It sells at a relatively high price—usually in excess of $20 per ton—for button manufacture.
Another species is the butterfly (_Plagiola securis_), which is very prettily marked on the outside with faintly colored dotted stripes of varying length. Over a background of dark yellow run black stripes to the outer edge of the shell, with dark dots between the stripes. The shell is small and thick, and like the sand shell and the buckhorn, is found in small quantities. Owing to the beauty and permanency of its luster, this shell is in demand for button manufacture, and its pearls are often very beautiful.
Other well-known species are the pancake (_Lampsilis alatus_), the maple-leaf (_Quadrula wardi_), and hackle-back (_Symphynota complanata_). On the Atlantic seaboard, the principal species in which pearls have been found are _Unio complanata_; the _Alasmodon arcuata_, which has hinge teeth, and a species of Anodon. Pearls from the _Unio complanata_ are usually smaller but more lustrous than those from either of the other species.
Among the many fresh-water mussels are found some remarkable conditions of animal life. Probably the most curious is the parasitic stage of certain species. When hatched from the egg, each one of these is provided with hooks or spines, by means of which it attaches itself to the gills or fins of a swimming fish and becomes embedded therein. After confinement in this cyst for a period of two months or more, the small mollusk works its way out and falls to the bottom of the river or pond, where its development continues along lines more conventional to molluscan life.
In most of the species of Unios the sexes are separate; but it has been determined that in some the individuals are provided with both sets of sexual organs. It is claimed by some naturalists that certain species may change from one sex to another; yet this does not seem to have been positively established.
Not the least interesting of the habits of the Unios is the manner in which they “walk,” bushels of them changing their habitation in a few hours. The shell opens slightly and the muscular tongue-like “foot” is thrust out, and by pressure of this on the bottom, the mollusk is propelled in a jerky, jumpy movement with more speed than one would suppose possible for the apparently inert creature.
The number of eggs produced by an individual in one season ranges from a few hundred in some species to many millions in others, as in the _Quadrula heros_, for instance. Most of the fresh-water mollusks are of slow growth, reaching maturity in six or eight years, and it is believed that if undisturbed they live to be from fifteen to fifty years old; indeed, some writers credit them with attaining an age of one hundred years.
While outwardly there is no positive indication of the existence of pearls, they are relatively scarce in young mollusks, and likewise in those having a normal, healthy appearance, with smooth exterior free from blemishes, and they are found generally in the older, irregular, and deformed shells, which bear excrescences and the marks of having parasites. However, some of the choicest pearls have come from shells relatively young and apparently in perfect condition.
It has been pointed out that with the fresh-water Unios there are three indications on which the fishermen to some extent rely for determining the presence of pearls from the outward aspects of the shell. There are, first, the thread or elevated ridge extending from the vertex to the edge; second, the kidney-shape of the shell, and third, the contortion of both valves toward the middle plane of the mollusk.
A single mollusk may contain several small pearls,—more than one hundred have been found,—but in such cases usually none has commercial value. Ordinarily only one is found in the examination of very many shells. Of these objects it may be truthfully said that “many are found, but few are chosen,” few that are of first quality or are worthy of a fine necklace. In many instances, several pounds of cheap pearls would be gladly exchanged for a choice gem weighing an equal number of grains.
On the Atlantic seaboard of America, the Anodontas, or “mussels,” as they are known locally, are more numerous than the Unios. They prefer the still waters of the ponds and lakes, rather than the swift currents of the streams. The shell is much thinner than that of the Unios, and it is usually not so brilliant in color and iridescence; consequently the pearly concretions obtained from them are less lustrous.
The rivers of Europe, and of Asia also, contain numbers of pearl-bearing mussels. In many localities the yield of pearls has at times attracted attention and produced much profit, though probably never equaling the present extent of the Mississippi River finds. The principal pearl-bearer of Europe is the _Unio margaritifera_, the shell of which has been of some local importance in the manufacture of pearl buttons. In Great Britain it is known as the pearl-mussel; in France as the _moule_ or _huître perlière_; in Germany as _perlenmuschel_; in Belgium as _paarl mossel de rivieren_; in Denmark as _perle-skiael_; in Sweden as _perlmussla_; in Russia as _schemtschuschuaja rakavina_, and in Finland as _simpsuckan cuosi_. The _Unio margaritifera_ likewise exists in Siberia, and possibly elsewhere in Asia. Other species of Unio exist there and in Mongolia, Manchuria, etc., as, for instance, _U. mongolicus_, _U. dahuricus_, etc. A leading species in eastern China, the _Dipsas plicatus_, has long been extensively employed in the artificial production of pearly objects or culture pearls.[83] Unio pearls show less uniformity of tints than those derived from the pearl-oysters. They present an extended series of shades, corresponding to those on the interior of the shells, from almost perfect white through various tints of cream, pink, yellow, bright red, blue, green, russet, and brown. The metallic shades are numerous, especially the steels and the coppers.
Most of the members of the _Mytilidæ_ family, which includes the marine mussels, are of slight luster; and the pearly concretions found in them are of the grade known as “druggists’ pearls,” so-called because, formerly, they were used in a powdered form in astringent and other medicines. However, some of these mussels on the European coast yield pearls that are fairly lustrous. The white and the pink are most numerous, but purple, red, bronze, and yellow are by no means uncommon.
A few pearls are also obtained from the sea-wings or wing-shells (_Pinna_), the silkworms of the sea, found in the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean, the southern coast of America, and elsewhere. These shells are narrow at the umbo, or hinge, long, and fan-shaped; they are generally brittle, and present a horn-like appearance. The interior is commonly of a silvery reddish or orange-colored hue, and this tint is imparted to the pearls. The most characteristic feature of the _Pinna_ is the thick rope of silky fibers, from four to ten, and sometimes twenty or more inches in length, constituting the byssus, a remarkable provision by means of which it anchors itself to the bottom and thus outrides the storm. Formerly the byssus was gathered in Sicily, washed in soap and water, dried, corded, and fabricated into gloves and similar articles of a fine texture. The finished garments were of a beautiful golden brown color, resembling the burnished gold on the backs of some splendid flies or beetles.
The yield of _Pinna_ pearls is very small. A few are obtained from the Mediterranean, especially on the Adriatic coast. These are usually rose-tinted or reddish in color, but of diminished orient, and inferior in size. _Pinna_ pearls are also reported from the Isle of Pines and from New Caledonia, where they are commonly very dark, almost black in color.
The window-glass shell (_Placuna placenta_), the _vitre chinoise_ of some writers, yields a few small, irregularly shaped pearls of a dull leaden color. It occurs in the inshore waters of the Indian and the southwestern Pacific oceans; fisheries are prosecuted in Tablegram Lake, near Trincomali, on the northeast coast of Ceylon; on the coast of Borneo, especially at Pados Bay, and to a less extent in some other localities. This mollusk is quite distinct from the true pearl-oyster, and in adult life is devoid of the byssus, living on the muddy bottom of the shallow waters. The shell is almost circular, the right valve is quite flat, and the left only slightly convex. It is remarkable for its transparency, especially in the first year of growth, when the beating of the heart of the mollusk is visible through it. Reaching maturity in about two years, the shell becomes white and translucent, resembling pressed isinglass somewhat in its texture. It then measures about six or seven inches in length, and nearly the same in width. The outside is rough; the interior is glazed over and has a subdued pearly luster. It is so thin and transparent that with a strong light very coarse print can be read through it. It is commonly used in the East Indies as a substitute for glass in windows, admitting a soft mellow light into the room. For this purpose it is usually cut into small rectangular or diamond-shaped pieces, about five or six square inches in area, and these are inserted into sash frames. It forms a good economical substitute for glass, not only in windows of native residences, but also in lanterns and the like.
[Illustration:
SHELL AND PEARLS OF THE COMMON CONCH
(_Strombus gigas_)
Of Florida and the West Indies ]
The giant clam (_Tridacna gigas_) of tropical waters yields a few large opal-white symmetrical pearls, with faint luster and of little value. The transversely oval shell of the _Tridacna_, with its great squamous ribs, is probably the largest and heaviest in existence, single pairs weighing upward of 500 pounds. It is found in tropical seas, and especially in the Indian Ocean. It is much used for ornament,
## particularly for fountain-basins, and for _bénitiers_, or holy-water
fonts. A beautiful pair used as _bénitiers_ in the Church of St. Sulpice in Paris is said to have been a gift of the Republic of Venice to Francis I. There seems to be no established fishery for this mollusk, and the pearls very rarely come on the market. About four years ago in New York City an effort was made to market one weighing about 200 grains. The owner represented that it was a “cocoanut pearl,” and offered to sell it for $2000; whereas its actual value was probably not over $10 or $20, and that only for a museum collection.
Pearls of slight luster also occur in the quahog, or hard clam (_Venus mercenaria_), of the Atlantic coast of the United States. Although these are rare, they are generally of good form, and some weigh upward of eighty grains each. They are commonly of dark color, purplish, ordinarily, but they may be white, pale lilac, brown, and even purplish black, or black. The white ones—which so nearly resemble ivory buttons as readily to pass for them at a casual glance—are of little value; but fine dark ones have retailed at from $10 to $100 each. There is little demand for them, for unless the color is very good, they possess slight beauty, lacking the orient peculiar to choice pearls. Pearls have also been reported from the edible clam of the Pacific coast of America.
Shelly concretions are found in the edible oyster of America (_Ostrea virginica_), as well as in that of Europe (_O. edulis_); but these are commonly objects of personal interest or of local curiosity, rather than of artistic or commercial value, as they are lacking in luster and iridescence. Most of them are dull or opal-white, some are purple, and a few are white on one side and purple on the other. As many as fifty of these formations have been found in a single oyster. Sometimes they are of odd appearance, suggesting the human eye or face, and recently one was found which bore a striking resemblance to a human skull. Notwithstanding many news items to the contrary, it is doubtful whether the choicest pearl from an edible oyster would sell for as high as $20 on its own merits; professional shuckers have opened thousands of bushels of oysters without finding one which would sell for ten cents.
Among univalves, the most prominent pearl-producer is probably the common conch or great conch (_Strombus gigas_) of the West Indies and the Florida coast, which secretes beautiful pink pearls of considerable value. This is one of the largest of the univalve shells, some individuals measuring twelve inches in length, and weighing five or six pounds. The graceful curves and the delicate tints of lovely pink color make it exceedingly attractive. The conch abounds in the waters of the West Indies, especially in the Bahamas, where many thousands are annually taken for the shell, which forms quite an article of commerce. The flesh is esteemed as food and is also used for bait; and it is
## particularly in preparing for these purposes that the pearls are found,
as no established fisheries exist for the pearls alone.
The ear-shells or abalones (Haliotidæ) found on the coasts of California, Japan, New Zealand, and other localities in the Pacific, secrete pearly concretions, sometimes with fine luster, but usually of small value. These shells resemble in general outline the form of the human ear. Distinguishing characteristics are the flatly-spiral bowl-like shape, and the regular series of holes in the back near the distal margin, for the admission of water to the respiratory organs. The holes are on the left side and parallel with the columellar lip, and those nearest the apex close up as the shell increases in size. The shells are rough externally, but beautifully nacreous within. In variety and intensity of coloring, the nacre is superior to that of the pearl-oysters, but it is not so harmonious, and it does not form so thick and flat a layer.
Abalone pearls are especially interesting on account of their brilliant and unusual colors. Green predominates, but blue and yellow also occur. Although commonly very small, some of the well formed ones exceed seventy-five grains in weight, and those of irregular shape may be very much larger. The ear-shells also produce many irregular pearly masses. Although these are without an established commercial value, their beautiful greenish or bluish tints adapt them for artistic jeweled objects, such as the body of a fly or of a beetle.
Similar concretions are found in species of turbos and turbinella, especially the Indian chank (_Turbinella rapa_), which yields pink and pale red pearls. The pearly nautilus (_Nautilus pompilius_) yields a few yellowish pearls, especially those taken in Australian waters; but from the paper nautilus—“the sea-born sailor of his shell canoe”—no pearls are obtained, owing to the non-lustrous nature of the shell.
In bygone days, especially in Asia, and also to some extent in Europe, pearls were credited as coming from many non-molluscan sources. The Rabbis had the idea that they came also from fish, as noted in the story of a tailor who was rewarded by finding a pearl in one which he bought (Gen. R. xi. 5). The Raganighantu of Narahari, a Kashmir physician of about 1240 _A.D._, reported them as coming from bamboos, cocoanuts, heads of elephants, bears, serpents, whales, fish, etc.;[84] although it conceded that these were deficient in luster, which is recognized as the characteristic feature of pearls. We understand, therefore, that this use of the word signifies only hard concretions of a spherical form. In the apology for his book, prison-bound Bunyan wrote:
A pearl may in a toad’s head dwell, And may be found in an oyster shell.
The crystal gems—the diamonds, rubies, etc.—are practically unlimited in their longevity, existing thousands of years unchanged in condition. Except those which have been discovered by man, the earth contains about as many as it ever did, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that in course of time a considerable percentage of the total will be discovered. But in the seas as well as in the rivers, the longevity of pearls is greatly restricted, and
Full many a gem of purest ray serene The dark, unfathomed caves of ocean bear[85]
to run their course of existence and decay unseen and unknown. Perishable while in the seas, almost as cereals and fruits on land, the harvest must be gathered with promptness or it is wasted. And it seems probable that only a small percentage of the beautiful gems produced in the waters have gladdened the sight of man.
With considerable hesitancy we have attempted to estimate the number of persons employed in the pearl fisheries of the world, and the aggregate local value of their catch. For two or three regions, this is not a matter of great difficulty. For instance, the divers employed in the Ceylon fishery are numbered each season, and the auction sales of their catch furnish a reasonably satisfactory basis for determining the value of the output. Likewise in Australia, Venezuela, and some minor localities, the fishermen are numbered; but the reports are less satisfactory as to the value of the pearls. In the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Gulf of California, and the islands of the Pacific, where pearl-diving is a profession and a regular source of livelihood, the number of employees is fairly constant. But in the rivers and ponds of America, as well as of Europe and of Asia, where neither experience nor costly equipment is required for the industry, and pearls to the value of very many thousands of dollars are obtained by men, women, and even children, on pleasure bent, as well as in the widely fluctuating professional fisheries, the problem is far more difficult.
Contending with these many difficulties, we venture to present the following estimate of the number of persons employed in the pearl fisheries of the world, and the value of the output in 1906.
Localities. Pearls Shells Fishermen Local Local No. Values. Values.
Asia:
Persian Gulf 35,000 $4,000,000 $110,000
Ceylon[86] 18,500 1,200,000 40,000
India 1,250 100,000 95,000
Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, etc.[87] 3,000 200,000 150,000
China, Japan, Siberia, etc. 20,000 400,000 50,000
——————— —————————— ——————————
Total 77,750 $5,900,000 $445,000
Europe:
British Isles 200 15,000
Continent of Europe 1,000 100,000 3,000
——————— —————————— ——————————
Total 1,200 $115,000 $3,000
Islands of the Pacific:
South Sea islands 4,500 125,000 500,000
Australian coast[88] 6,250 450,000 1,200,000
Malay Archipelago 5,000 300,000 800,000
——————— —————————— ——————————
Total 15,750 $875,000 $2,500,000
America:
United States rivers 8,500 650,000 350,000
Venezuela 1,900 275,000 10,000
Mexico 1,250 210,000 200,000
Panama 400 40,000 75,000
Miscellaneous 1,000 75,000 25,000
——————— —————————— ——————————
Total 13,050 $1,250,000 $660,000
======= ========== ==========
Grand total 107,750 $8,140,000 $3,608,000
Our returns do not represent the annual output of pearls in the values best known to gem buyers. The difference in price between pearls in the fisherman’s hands in the Persian Gulf or at the Pacific islands, and that for which they are exchanged over the counters in New York or Paris, is nearly as great as the difference in value of wool on the sheep’s back and of the same material woven into fashionable fabrics. For each dollar received by the fisherman, the retail buyer probably pays three; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the pearls herein represented probably sold ultimately for an aggregate of $24,420,000.
This summary falls far short in giving a correct idea of the importance of the pearl fisheries in furnishing a livelihood to humanity; for it takes no consideration of that great body of men who contribute incidentally to the prosecution of the fisheries, such as shell-openers, pearl-washers, watchmen, cooks, laborers, etc. In the Ceylon pearl fishery of 1906, for instance, our estimate shows 18,500 fishermen; but there were 40,000 persons engaged at the pearl camp alone, and many others were given employment in boat-building, supplying provisions, selling the pearls, etc., and this does not include the wives and children depending on the industry for sustenance. Indeed, it seems not unreasonable to estimate that instead of only the 18,500 fishermen, 85,000 persons were in a large measure dependent for their livelihood on the Ceylon fishery in 1906.
Estimated on the same basis, we have a total of 500,000 persons depending largely on the pearl fisheries of the world for their support. Thus we see that pearl buyers and pearl wearers not only gratify a commendable admiration for the beautiful, but contribute largely to the economic balance whereby one class of humanity either sustains or is dependent upon another, even though these classes be so widely separated as the crown of Russia from the half-starved diver of the tropical seas. How strange is the providence of God, who, by granting the pearl to the poor Arab, the Tamil of India, the South Sea Islander, and the forgotten Selang of Mergui, makes the greatest and wealthiest in the world contribute to their support.
VI
PEARLS FROM ASIA
THE PERSIAN GULF, FISHERIES OF INDIA, CEYLON PEARL FISHERIES, RED SEA AND ARABIAN SEA, CHINA, JAPAN, SIBERIA, ETC.
VI THE PEARL FISHERIES OF THE PERSIAN GULF
Dear as the wet diver to the eyes Of his pale wife, who waits and weeps on shore, By sands of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf; Plunging all day in the blue waves; at night, Having made up his toll of precious pearls, Rejoins her in their hut upon the shore.
SIR EDWIN ARNOLD.
The pearl fisheries of the Persian Gulf are the most famous and valuable in the world, and have been prosecuted for more than two thousand years. A translation by that eminent Assyriologist, Jules Oppert, of a cuneiform inscription on a broken obelisk, erected presumably by a king of Nineveh, seems to indicate a very early origin for these fisheries.[89] Professor Oppert’s translation is:
In the sea of the changeable winds (_i.e._, the Persian Gulf), his merchants fished for pearls; In the sea where the North Star culminates, they fished for yellow amber.
The earliest writing of Europeans on the East refer to these fisheries. An account of them was given by the Greek writer Megasthenes, who accompanied Seleucus Nicator, the Macedonian general, in his Asiatic conquests, about 307 B.C. Shortly afterward they were noted by the Greek historian, Isidorus of Charace, in his account of the Parthian Empire. Extracts from Nearchus preserved by Arrian also mention them. Ptolemy speaks of the pearl fisheries which existed from time immemorial at Tylos, the Roman name for the present Island of Bahrein. These resources were well known in the days of Pliny. In his “Historia Naturalis,” Book IX , ch. 35, he says: “But the most perfect and exquisite [pearls] of all others be they that are gotten about Arabia, within the Persian Gulf.”[90] Pliny states also (