182 SALMONIDiE OF BRITAIN. 



FRESH-WATER TROUT. 



In the foregoing pages I have advanced reasons for supposing that we 

 possess only one species of sea trout, although our eastern and northern foitn of 

 salmon-trout, Salmo trutta, appears as a rule to have a few more crecal 

 ap])cndages than the sewin, S. camhricus, which is chiefly found on the southern 

 and western parts of England and Wales, and along most of our Irish shores. 

 Externally so similar are these races, that no naturalist has yet succeeded in 

 pointing out unmistakable differences between the two, while their dentition 

 and the formation of the jaws vary to such an extent that they cannot be relied 

 upon as differentiating one from the other, although generally the vomer has 

 more teeth along its body in the northern than in the southern variety. 



Passing, as the sea trout docs, by insensible gradations and almost unappreci- 

 able differences into the fresh-water races, it becomes necessary to make a rather 

 full investigation respecting whether such is the result of changing their 

 habitation from the sea to fresh watei's or the reverse, or if their difi'erences are 

 the result of a hybridizing process carried on between an anadromous sea trout 

 and a non-migratory fresh-water species. 



As already observed (p. 143) Widogrcu, in 18C3, asserted that the anadro- 

 mous sea trout and non-migratory fresh-watoi' forms were simply varieties of 

 one common species, the differences in colour being consequent upon local 

 surroundings. Malmgren, in his account of the SalmonidaD of Finland, came to 

 the same conclusion. Collett, Norges Fislie, 1875, p. 157, likewise held an 

 identical opinion, so also did Malm in his Fanna, 1877, p. 538, Feddersen, 

 Dinilsc Fersl-vnn(l.''JisJ:e, p. 77, and others have likewise held and still maintain the 

 same views.* While Shaw, in 1843, gave a short account of having reared 

 6ca trout from eggs and how some of the young, probably about a ijurirter, never 

 assumed the silvery migratory livery, ancl he advanced the opinion that some 

 may pei'manently become residents in fresh water. But this question of the 

 identity of the marine and fresh-water forms has been already referi'ed to 

 (pp. 144, 145). 



Opinions still are divided as to whether these two forms are merely divisions 

 of one species, but however this may be, ichthyologists are more agreed in 

 believing that all the varieties of our fresh-water trout are merely local races, in 

 which the differences in this very plastic form arc brought about by their 

 surroundings. Differences which I have shown (p. 145) may disappear on the 

 young being raised under changed circumstances. 



J urine. History of the Fishes of the Lnlce of Geneva, 1825, gave what he 

 believed to be sufficient reasons for considering that the local forms existing 

 there and which had been accounted di.stinct species of trout, as Salmo trutta, 

 and S- fario, and were known under diflcrcnt names as the common trout, 

 salmon-trout, lake trout, river trout, alpiiic trout, &c., were all referable to 

 differences of sex, age, season, the nature of the water, food, light, &c. The 

 distinctive mai-lcs taken from the prolongation of the undcr-jaw beyond the 

 upper, the colour of the flesh, of the skin, with the size and shade of the spots, 

 the form of the tail, etc., being variable, were not to be depended on. 



Lunel remarking upon the various specific names that had been given to the 



* Dr. Gihitlicr, who in 18G4 and at other times has given his opinion that these views are the 

 outcome of the incapacity or ignorance of the observers, consistently omits all reference to 

 the subject in his Introduction to the Studij of Fishes, 1880, written according to the Zooloi/icul 

 Eecard in order "to serve as a book of reference to zoologists generally; and to supply those 

 wlio have frequent oiiporlunities of observing fishes, with a ready means of obtaining informa- 

 tion." He also refrains from mentioning that some naturalists are imable to admit the numerous 

 species into which he has sub-divided trout. 



