29S> Dr. Hancock on the Composition of the Fin Rays 



mistaken * ; eithet the Clupea ficta Lacepede {Finttty Cav.) or ft 

 nondescript species, is taken for the clupea alosa of Linnaeus, 

 and referred to as identical in Turton's translation of the Syst. 

 Nat. — a work, by-the-by, most preposterously shorn of the 

 more essential parts of its original, especially in respect to 

 synonyms, and references to figures, and more complete de-^ 

 scriptions; at least, this is the case in those parts of the work, 

 embracing the fishes, quadrupeds^ and all the more important 

 animals, in which not a single reference is given, whilst the- 

 most lengthy, tiresome, and minute lists of references ani 

 synonyms are appended to the less important department of 

 natural history, as, to many of the species of shells, worms, 

 insects, moluscce, &c. ! No wonder that ignorance should 

 hold the reins, where such bad judgment is manifested by the 

 heads and pretended magnates of the science. 



It appears rather singular that the celebrated French natu- 

 ralist, who quotes all standard authors, should constantly ab- 

 stain from any mention of the work on the *' British fishes," 

 which is considered the chief authority here, although he 

 frequently cites the common English, or what are termed the 

 vulgar names of species. I presume, he regards the British 

 fishes as partly nondescripts, or as imperfectly known, and as 

 being, in numerous instances, falsely assigned to the Linnsean. 



It was, doubtless, a sense of this depressed state of the 

 science which induced a few enlightened and enterprising na- 



♦ Mr. Yarrell states that the shad has strong teeth in both jaws : but I have 

 not found any rudiments of teeth in those I have examined. The vertebrae I find 

 to be 55, counting the last piece, or that which ends in the fan-shaped expansion of 

 bone forming the extremity of the spinal column. Is this included by Mr. Yar- 

 rell in counting the vertebrae ? That examined by him, compared with white- 

 bait, is, doubtless, what usually obtains the name of shad here, but appears not 

 to be the clupea alosa, certainly not that of Cuvier, which he (Cuvier) says is dis- 

 tinguished by the absence of teeth, and a single black spot behind the gills — 

 " une tache noire, derriere les ouies ! " Reg. An., vol. ii., p. 319 ; and that Bloch, 

 pi. 30, has given, under the name alosa, only a Finte, Clupea jinta of Cuvier, with 

 well-marked teeth in both jaws, five or six black spots along the side ! and a body 

 more oblong than in the alosa. — Synonym, agone de Lombardie. This may have 

 Been the species compared with white-bait by Mr. Yarrell. For a figure of the 

 true shad (clupea alosa, Linn.) he refers to Duham., sect. III., pi. i., fig. 1. 



Are the alosa of Linnaeus, Bloch, and Donovan, all different species, whilst in- 

 tended for one and the same? If so, it is quite sufficient to account for the 

 reported variation in the number of the fin-rays. It is not Nature, however, but 

 our mistakes, I presume, in confounding different species, which chiefly give rise 

 to this supposed want of constancy.' 



