1824 The Zoologist— August, 1868. 



Shaw in his description followed the later edition of Pennant, and 

 perpetuated this obvious mistake. Donovan, in his ' Natural History 

 of British Fishes,' published at the beginning of the present century, 

 treated the subject at greater length, and considered that he had 

 obtained incontrovertible evidence that the whitebait were the young 

 of the shad. This opinion of Donovan thus definitely announced 

 carried the suffrages of those naturalists who did not take the trouble 

 to investigate the question for themselves, and Turton, in his ' British 

 Fauna,' and Dr. Fleming followed in the wake of Mr. Donovan ; and 

 this opinion was generally received until Mr. Yarrell investigated the 

 subject, and conclusively proved that whitebait were not the fry of 

 either species of shadt The first account of these investigations of 

 Mr. Yarrell was published in the 'Zoological Journal' for October, 

 1828, and afterwards appeared in his well-known work, the ' History 

 of British Fishes.' Since this time whitebait have been usually 

 regarded as being specifically distinct from any other fish, and have 

 been termed Clupea alba. Valenciennes, writing in 1846, went so far 

 as to regard them as being more than specifically distinct, and placed 

 them in a separate genus, which he termed llogenia ; but, as stated 

 by Dr. Giinlher, the characters employed by this author in the dis- 

 tinction of clupeoid fish were not of definite value, and in consequence 

 he fell into numerous errors. 



Mr. Couch, the latest systematic writer on British fishes, follows 

 Yarrell, and states: — "It was formerly supposed that the whilebait 

 was the early stage of the growth of the Allis shad, which was then 

 confounded with the Twait, and Donovan has represented the former 

 for the latter. It was also supposed to be found only in the Thames, 

 which last supposition could be regarded in no other light than as 

 inconsistent with the former, since the shad was known to shed its 

 spawn in several of the other rivers of England. But the belief of its 

 being only met with in the Thames is now also known to be an error; 

 and Dr. Parnell discovered it to be not rare in the Firth of Forth, 

 while in the south and west it has been obtained in Devonshire and 

 Cornwall. 1 have been favoured with examples from the Exe by 

 Dr. Scott, of Exeter, and have obtained them from the Fowey, in 

 Cornwall ; and there is scarcely a doubt that if looked for they might 

 be found in every important river in the British islands. Cuvier says 

 they also exist in Germany ; but we conclude they are limited to 

 districts where the climate does not extend beyond the borders of 

 moderate heat and cold. The time of spawning is supposed to be in 



