4672 



Fish 



es. 



Radii branchiostegii 

 Rays of the pectoral fins 



pelvis or ventral . 



anal 



dorsal 



caudal — each lobe 



6 + 8 



11+11 3= 



1+ 9 



3+9 



3 + 11 



14 + 14 



22 

 14 

 10 

 12 

 14 

 28 



100 



Teeth— Intermaxillary . . . . 10 + 10 '= 20 



Vomerine .... 20 



Upper maxillary . . . 25 + 25 = 50 



Palatal 14 + 14 = 28 



Total, upper jaw 118 



Mandibular or lower jaw . . 20 + 20 = 40 



Lingual 6 + 6 = 12 



52 



General total 170 



My esteemed friend and former student Mr. George Hunter, of 

 Tynefield, and who I recollect was a first-rate angler, said that he 

 believed he had occasionally caught these trout with a very small 

 artificial fly and single hair tackle, from off the bank of his father's 

 property, which skirted the estuary of the Tyne. I do not doubt 

 this, for all the species of the Salmonidse will occasionally rise to a 

 fly, although it is the natural food of only some of them. 



In conclusion : throughout the preceding inquiry into the natural 

 history ^of the estuary trout I have used the dentar formula so 

 strongly recommended by my esteemed friend M. Valenciennes, as 

 being the one I think generally received; but I think it right to 

 state here, that extended inquiries I have of late years made on this 

 point have satisfied me that the view adopted by this eminent 

 naturalist is neither practical nor scientific. The true salmon and 

 the salmon trout, when weighing between 2 J and 3 lbs., have pre- 

 cisely the same arrangement of the vomerine teeth, and cannot there- 

 fore be distinguished from each other by this character alone. On 

 the other hand, as the Fario or sea trout grows larger it loses the 

 posterior vomerine teeth just as much as does the true salmon, and 

 thus the dentition again ceases to be a distinguishing characteristic. 

 The young of both Salmo and Fario have the dentition of the 

 common trout. Thus, the law of dentition applied by M. Valcu- 



