Chapters 144-145 have examples of what I mean. In chapter 144 section 2, Herodotus writes,
"Of these gods one or another had in succession been supreme; the last of them to rule the country was Osiris' son Horus, whom the Greeks call Apollo"
An interesting comparison, one I can agree with, but at another point (I can't recall where) he states that Osiris is the Egyptian equivalent of Dionysus, which seems a little absurd.
I find this to be quite fascinating. I can imagine both Egyptians and Greeks equating each other's gods and attributing differences in names and customs to language and culture. Was this really the case as Herodotus suggests? And how did the Egyptians think of Greek deities?
For reference, this is the translation of Histories I am reading
This is something called 'interperatio graeca' where in a polytheistic world Greeks and Romans looks for equivalencies in the gods of other cultures. The argument being that the gods themselves are universal but just called by different names in different places. The meaning of a deity is found in his specific character as played out in his myths and cults. Another example is Alexander paying a visit to the shrine of 'Zeus-Ammon' at Siwa. Ammon is king of the egyptian Gods, Zeus is king of the Greek gods and therefore they must be the same entity but worshipped in different ways and with different attributes. That said, Herodotus was the first people to do this whose work has come down to us.
The Romans also engaged in this extensively with the Gallic and Germanic cultures that they encountered. Tacitus does a lot of this in his Germania. Also native shrines would often be attributed to the gallic form of a Roman god. One example being the hot springs of Bath which were originally a shrine to the local goddess Sulis. When the Romans arrived in their interpretation was that she was the local form of Minerva and they set up their own shrine to Sulis Minerva.