THE "ROACH. 295 



while Mr. Pennell observes that "the prevailing colour 

 of the roach is silvern." 



From the above it will be seen that there is no small 

 difficulty in describing the roach chromatically ; and I 

 imagine that a painter who had never seen a roach, and 

 had only these and other descriptions before him, would 

 have some trouble in colouring his subject. But this need 

 not distress us. Most of us know pretty well what a 

 roach is like, and, descriptionally, we need not be nice to 

 a shade. 



I must, however, humbly submit some objections to 

 his ichthyological name — Leuciscus ruiilus. Of course, 

 he is rightly called Gyprinus, for he is an undeniable carp, 

 as to family. I can allow the propriety of Leuciscus, or 

 " white " fish, for he is a white fish — and so, by the way, 

 are some others which are not called Leucisci ; but as for 

 rutilus appended, if it is used in its original signification 

 of " red," with the further idea of inclining to a golden 

 yellow (see Latin Die), the term is not a happy one. 

 Though he has some red about him, he has hardly enough 

 to warrant rutilus as a distinctive appellation. He is not 

 nearly so markedly red as, for instance, a perch is as to 

 his fins. He is not "known at once by his bright-red 

 colour," as one of the authors above quoted says. 



The rudd, which is sometimes confounded with the 

 roach, has a far better title to be called rutilus, for his 

 eyes and fins are tinted with different shades of red, 

 crimson, and orange scarlet, and his prevailing tint is 

 golden with a reddish- orange hue. If the roach is to be 

 called rutilus, the rudd has a right to be called rutilior, 

 though perhaps he may for the present be contented with 

 the classical name given him, erythropthalmus, which 



