38 DR. A. GUNTHER ON THE BRITISH CHARRS. ([Feb. 11, 
with Mr. Yarrell’s collection to the British Museum (S. salvelinus, 
Jenyns). 
c. Charr of the Lake of Windermere. 
Two mature males, procured by the kindness of Sir J. Richardson. 
For further comparison I had the “ Rothel” of the Lake of Con- 
stance, the “Ombre chevalier’ of the Lake of Geneva, four speci- 
mens of a Charr from Iceland, and twelve without known locality. 
Before we enter into a historical account of our knowledge of the 
British Charrs, we must consider the question, what fishes have been 
originally intended by the Linnean denominations of Salmo umbla, 
Salmo salvelinus, and Salmo alpinus—names with which the British 
Charrs have been designated by the various authors. 
The original descriptions themselves are too short and too general 
to give anything like specific distinctions; but fortunately we see 
that question settled, once and for ever, by the very names of the 
fishes and by the localities from which the typical specimens had 
been procured. J. Heckel has made inquiries into this subject with 
regard to the Salmo salvelinus of South Germany*, and the follow- 
ing is the result :— 
a. Salmo salvelinus, L. Linneus has founded this species on the 
tenth species of Salmo in Artedi’s ‘Genera,’ or on the eleventh in his 
‘Synonymy’ ; and Artedi had derived the whole of his knowledge of 
this fish from Willoughby, who (p. 195) gives a description of the 
“Salvelin’ from a specimen captured near the Austrian town of 
Linz. Therefore there cannot be the slightest doubt that the Lin- 
nean denomination is intended for the South-German fish, which, up 
to the present day, is called Sa/bling at various localities. 
The best account of the Silbling has been given by Heckel, who 
says that they are found in several lakes of South Germany, Tyrol, 
and Switzerland. First (/. c.) he distinguished three species accord- 
ing to the different arrangement of the small teeth on the vomer ; 
afterwards+, having convinced himself that this character is subject 
to some variation, he reunited those three forms, stating at the same 
time that those fishes from different localities of Central Europe 
considerably differ in their forms. And it is not at all improbable 
that there are really several species confounded by him, but differing 
and distinguishable by other, more constant, characters than by that 
of the arrangement of the vomerine teeth. Be this as it may, it suf- 
fices for our purpose that Heckel distinguishes those fishes of Central 
Europe by the considerable breadth of the interorbital space, which 
is twice the diameter of the eye. Also the figuret (which is rather 
indifferent) represents a remarkably small eye ; the pectoral fin oc- 
cupies only one-half of the distance of its root from that of the ven- 
trals; and when we compare the British specimens, we find that their 
head is much narrower, their eye much larger, and their pectoral 
* Reisebericht, p. 89, in Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 1851, July. 
tT Susswasserf, Oestr. p. 280. . 
t Susswasserf. fig. 155. 
