231 



CHAR. 



When treating o£ the group Salmones, or forms among the genns Salmo, 

 wherein teeth are found present at some period of their lives on the body as well 

 as on the head of the vomer, I gave (pp. 10 to 11) a synopsis of the views held by 

 British Naturalists respecting what they each deemed to be species or else 

 referred to varieties. I propose taking the same course with the chars, a sub- 

 genus of Salmo, wherein the vomerine teeth are restricted to the head of that 

 bone (see fig. 3, p. 10). 



Although char do not differ so much in colour among themselves as do our 

 trout, partly owing to their not frequenting salt water, still, at various ages, their 

 forms ai^e so diversified, and sexual distinctions so considerable, as to have 

 deceived many ichthyologists who have studied these fishes more in museums 

 than in their natural haunts. Fish culture has, however, proved of great service 

 in eradicating from systematic zoology a large number of species, which must, 

 however, unfortunately continue for years encumbering the pages of ichthyological 

 literature.* 



* Willoughby (168G) placed under one head Umhla minor, Gesner the Reiitele of South 

 Germany, the Torgoch of Wales and Westmoreland, and the red char of Windermere, table no. 7. 

 He also alluded to the gelt or gilt char of Westmoreland, which he referred to Carpio laciis Benaci 

 of Eondeletius ; he likewise figured it, table no. 5. 



Eay (1713) held the same views as Willoughby. 



Pennant (1776) figured the char, and asserted his opinion that the case char, the gelt or silver 

 cJiar, i.e., a barren fish or one which has not spawned the preceding season, and on that account 

 is reckoned to be in the greatest perfection, the red char, and those of Loch Inch in Scotland, 

 were probably all one species. He observed that the variety case char spawned about Michaelmas, 

 while the gilt char did so from the beginning of January to the end of March. He also alluded 

 to the Welsh char. 



Donovan (1801) gave a figure of what he considered the gilt char of Pennant, Salmo alpinus, 

 Linn. ; also a plate of Salmo salvclintis, Bloch, the torgoch of the Welsh, then said to be confined 

 to the waters of Llyn Quellyn, one of the Alpine lakes situated in a deep valley on the west side 

 of Snowdon. He considered that it differed from the chars of Windermere. 



Turton (1807) agi-eed with Donovan, as did also Fleming (1828). Jenyns (1835) held identical 

 views, but termed the Alpine char of Donovan S. umhla. Yarrell (1836) held the same opinions 

 as Jenyns, but in his second edition (1841) as well as in his third (1859), all our British forms 

 were held to be varieties of one species. 



Agassiz (1834) believed that all our British forms were identical with the Omhre chevalier of 

 the Lake of Geneva, observing that naturalists " have especially attached themselves to the form 

 of the head and the arrangement of the colours : but these two particulars are much too variable 

 to supply precise characters ; as to the variations in colour we may say they are infinite" (Brit. 

 Assoc. Report, 1834, p. 619). 



Bichardson (1835) placed (1) S. umhla as synonymous with S. alpinus and S. salvelinns of 

 Linna3us, and also with the species found in the Lake of Geneva, but he desired his readers to 

 remember that the history of the char, whether single or distinctive, had not up to that time been 

 clearly made out. In Windermere he continued that the case char ascended rivers, spawning 

 about Michaelmas, while the red char deposited its ova along the shores of the lake, and not until 

 the end of December or the beginning of the year. 



Parnell (1838) classed our northern char as S. umhla, Linn.'cus. 



Thompson (1840), and subsequently in 1851, held that all the forms of British and Irish char 

 were varieties of one species, the .S'. iniil/la, Linnteus. 



White (1851) placed all the British examples in his catalogue of the fish in the National 

 Museum as pertaining to S. umhla. 



Dr. J. Davy (1857) said of the char, "so various are they, indeed, that in no two lakes do they 

 perfectly agree, either in their average size, form and colouring, or even in their habits. Compare 

 the char of Windermere and Hawes Water : were it not for their scales and other chstinctive 

 features, there would be little hesitation in saying that they were different species, the char of 

 Hawes Water is so much smaller and thinner and differently spotted : the one taking the artificial 



