1870.] IN THE GROWTH OF SALMON. 37 
taken from Dr. Giinther’s catalogue; but the upper and lower trans- 
verse or oblique series of scales are expressed here in separate columns, 
and the numbers within brackets are extremes incidentally noted in 
his description of typical specimens in the collection. 








Taste A. 
Scales. 
Verte- ig ain te Transy. series. 
Beco: immediately | Dorsal fin | Lateral line 
above lat. line. | to Jat. line |to ventral fin 
(obliquely). | (obliquely). 
Salmoisalar 2. sesses~-scsqertecasveses 59 53-70 120 22-26 19-22 
—— — ?, Zool. Soc. spec. No.1.) 59 48-50 120-122 19 (21?) 18 
— —?, Zool. Soc.spec. No.2.) 60 | ese 120 Pie ee wea et cor. 
Peat TGR Es GESTS ih Ree: 59-60 | [46] 49-61 |120[117] 24-26[30] [36-34 [22] 
—cambricus . 59 39-47 120-125[117-130]|27 [25-28]  |38-40[20-24] 
— fario gaimardii .........00000. 59-60 | 33-46 120 [124] 27-30 [26] [22] 
Se eit Eee 57-58 | 38-47[51] |120[117-127] |26-80 [23-31] [21-27] 
— carpio (Lake Garda) .........). .....- 40-50 POS Pee VAR AR Sent. MiP aed 
— remanus (Lake Geneya)...... 57-59 | 45-52 115-128 26-28-36 = || seeeee 
— rapii (Lake Constance) ...... 59-60 | 48-54 120 Bimoe — ae A ees 
—— lacustris (Lake Constance)...| 60-61 | 60-61 120 26-0 LL oe Oe 



Tested by the number of vertebree, the doubtful specimens in 
question may either be S. salar or any other of the species enume- 
rated, excepting S. fario ausonit. 
The numerical excess or diminution of the pyloric appendages 
points in the present case to the probability that the two fish are not 
Salmon. The numbers 48-50 are considerably below the minimum 
of S. salar, but come within the range of the Central-European Lake 
Salmonoids—to wit, the four last mentioned in the table; likewise 
S. trutta. 
One of the most constant characters is said by Dr. Ginther to be 
the size and consequently relative numbers of the scales. In our 
specimens the horizontal series of these, 120-122, does not exclude 
the notion of their being Salmon ; neither does it show if they are, or 
are not, specifically separate. The numbers, however, do not tally 
with the minimum or maximum of several of the species (vide Table 
A), and in this rather agree than otherwise with S. salar. 
Of the transverse or, rather, somewhat oblique series of scales 
superior to the longitudinal medio-lateral line, and counted in a row 
from the dorsal fin to the said lateral line, one specimen (that desig- 
nated No. 1, P. Z. S. 1868, p. 251) possesses nineteen, possibly more, 
as shall presently be explained; the other specimen (No, 2, J. ¢.) 
twenty-two. The latter number is given by Dr. Giinther as the nu- 
merical minimum of S. salar; the former falls three short of it. 
Hence, as regards this differentiating character, No. 1 apparently 

