GADID^E. 311 



Vaudois Naturd History Society, the following facts refute sucli a belief. 

 Rondelet, in 1555, published at Lyons descriptions of the Fresh- water Fishes of 

 Europe, and observed of the burbot, " the fish which the Lyonese call the Lotte, 

 is named by the Genevese Motelle or Mustele." Motaile is still the popular name 

 of this fish, and, having even then a local name, it must have been well known. 

 Rondelet's work was published thirty-three years prior to Du Villard's map, and 

 he gives a figure by which this fish can be recognized. Irrespective of this, the 

 monks of St. Prex in the fourteenth century had neither a convent nor were 

 any of their order attached to the Chapter at Lusanne. 



In Scotland the burbot is generally considered absent. Mr. Sim, who has 

 given an interesting account of the fishes of Aberdeen, included it as among the 

 local Fauna, on the authority of a statement by the late Dr. Dyce. This last 

 gentleman made the following note at the end of the article on the burbot in 

 Yarrell's British Fishes: "June, 180 1, two specimens found in market to-day, 

 never met with the fish before. One 13^ the other 12^ inches long. Upper jaw 

 the longest, teeth very sharp, black line all round tail." Where the fish came 

 from, if ascertained, was not recorded. In the Catalogue of the Fishes in the 

 British Museum we find seven skins of Lota vulgaris thus recorded "adult: 

 skins, Firth of Forth. From Dr. Parnell's collection." Were this unimpeachable 

 it would conclusively prove its existence north of the Border ; but even at first 

 sight it would seem strange that this fresh-water fish should be captured in the 

 locality referred to, more especially as Dr. Parnell himself does not allude to its 

 existence there in his prize essay on the Fishes of the Firth of Forth. I find in 

 the British Museum Registry that when Dr. Parnell's collection of 1G36 specimens 

 of fish obtained from all parts of the world, was recorded, no locality was given as 

 to from whence these seven skins came. I conclude they were obtained from 

 elsewhere, and are certainly unreliable as Scotch examples. Here, however, I 

 would remark that the burbot is placed among the SUuridce by Artedi, showing how 

 minute or concealed the scaling is to have been overlooked by such an excellent 

 ichthyologist. This would lead us to consider whether others may not have been 

 equally mistaken when examining specimens, supposing such to be scaleless 

 Siluroids. Fleming found at the end of Sibbald's list* of Scottish Fishes Siluris 

 sive glanis, and on this authority introduced the Siluris glands of Continental 

 Europe into his catalogue of British animals, although Willughby, who mentions 

 Siluris glanis, does not refer to Great Britain as one of the localities which it 

 inhabits. It may be that the burbot was alluded to by Sibbald, or it may be that 

 his authority was no better than the one I have alluded to respecting Parnell's 

 examples. 



In England it is found in the rivers and some of the lakes in the county of 

 Durham : also in sluggish Yorkshire rivers where, however, it is not numerous. 

 It is reported as comparatively common in the River Holl, the Lower Derwent, 

 the Wiske, the Foss, the Ouse below Naburn, and in dykes about Selby : and as 

 scarce in the Seven, Pickering-beck, and other tributaries of the Upper Derwent, 

 the Codbeck, the Nidd, and the AVharf (Yorkshire Vertebrata). In Norfolk it is 

 taken in small numbers in the Yare, the Bare and the Waveney, penetrating up 

 to their sources : is not common in the district of the broads but is more 

 abundant in the Thet (Lubbock). Also in the Trent and its affluents in 

 Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire,f where the largest examples have also been 

 obtained : in the great east fen in Lincolnshire, although it is not generally 

 distributed over that county ; it is also found in Cambridgeshire. The belief, 

 however, is prevalent that the species is decreasing in numbers, and perhaps 

 doomed to extinction. As a proof of this it may be mentioned that in September, 

 1879, when clearing oiit a small stream, an affluent of the Tame which joins the 

 Trent, one of these fish was captured, but was only recognized by a single individual 

 who remarked that thirty years since he had seen examples. Mr. Frank Buckland 



* Sibbald gives in his Scot. Illus. Ealpout as one of the fishes of that country, but he employs 

 the name for the viviparous Blcnuy, see pi. xix, tig. .'?. 



f riot in his Natural History of Staffordshire, 1(586, alluded to its existence, but even then it 

 was rare. Mr. Heath observes that it is still found in the River Penk in that county. 



