and the Anatomy of Fishes, 297 



the later British naturalists ; notwithstanding which, the dis- 

 parity of the two fishes is «o great, that even the common 

 fishermen ilnd fishmongers ridicule the idea of their being 

 identical. 



It is rather surprising, that those authors who have had the 

 best or most frequent opportunities for observing the two sub- 

 jects in question should be the only naturalists who have gone 

 into this error ; for we do not find it in Linnaeus, nor in Cuvier, 

 Bloch, Lacepede, or any other of the continental writers, so 

 far as I have observed, and the naturalists just named have not 

 even hinted at such an identity, in respect to these two species, 

 By Linnaeus they are even placed in different genera, and by 

 Cuvier in distinct subgenera ! 



It is to be regretted that Mr. Yarrell should not rather have 

 given the actual characters from the results of his own exa- 

 mination (for it appears he had numerous specimens before 

 him at various times), instead of quoting the confused and 

 discordant accounts of other authors. But he compares the 

 number of fin rays in the white-bait, as accurately numbered 

 by himself, with those in the shad as stated by Donovan, and 

 which differ extravagantly from those observed by Linnaeus. 

 The probability is, they are two distinct species confounded by 

 Donovan, and admitted by one or two British writers without 

 examination. I will only observe further, that the reputed 

 identity of the shad and white-bait appears to be merely an 

 incidental error of some later writers, although Mr. Yarrell 

 mentions it as an opinion long since settled or established. 



If the knowledge of natural history in general be defective, 

 it is more especially so in respect to ichthyology. Many of 

 the British species, or those fishes which annually visit the 

 British coast, are either nondescripts or mistaken, and falsely 

 identified with the Linnaean species : in some instances the 

 fresh-water species are, likewise, thus confounded. 



It would seem as though the writers on British fishes have 

 considered that every species has been sufficiently determined, 

 and that nothing remains to be done but to repeat, and conti- 

 nually copy, from each other. It is not a little strange, that a 

 fish supposed to be so well known as the shad, should still be 



