﻿FISHES. 
  

  

  205 
  

  

  ova 
  of 
  the 
  char, 
  fertilised 
  by 
  the 
  milt 
  of 
  the 
  trout, 
  thirty 
  

   to 
  forty 
  per 
  cent, 
  were 
  developed. 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  Salmon 
  ova, 
  

   fertilised 
  with 
  trout 
  milt, 
  yielded 
  thirty 
  to 
  forty 
  per 
  cent, 
  of 
  

   young 
  fish; 
  but 
  more, 
  if 
  the 
  milt 
  of 
  the 
  char 
  were 
  employed." 
  

   It 
  is 
  therefore 
  considered 
  unnecessary 
  to 
  enumerate 
  the 
  

   long 
  list 
  of 
  names 
  given 
  to 
  trout 
  in 
  the 
  various 
  districts 
  

   throughout 
  " 
  Dee." 
  Again, 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  the 
  Gasterosteidce 
  : 
  

   This 
  is 
  a 
  most 
  perplexing 
  genus, 
  and 
  one 
  that 
  has 
  been 
  

   divided 
  and 
  subdivided 
  into 
  an 
  endless 
  number 
  of 
  species. 
  

   In 
  1880, 
  Dr. 
  Gunther 
  held 
  that 
  "about 
  ten 
  species 
  are 
  satis- 
  

   factorily 
  known." 
  Dr. 
  Day, 
  in 
  his 
  Fishes 
  of 
  Great 
  Britain 
  

   and 
  Ireland, 
  vol. 
  i., 
  p. 
  237, 
  says 
  : 
  " 
  It 
  appears 
  remarkable 
  how 
  

   many 
  species 
  have 
  been 
  named 
  of 
  sticklebacks 
  outnumbering 
  

   even 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  Salmonidce 
  of 
  the 
  fresh 
  waters. 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  

   It 
  appears 
  to 
  me 
  that 
  our 
  British 
  Gasterostei 
  consist 
  of 
  

   merely 
  three 
  species, 
  which 
  are 
  subject 
  to 
  an 
  almost 
  

   endless 
  variation 
  in 
  colour 
  and 
  form." 
  This 
  seems 
  to 
  me 
  

   to 
  be 
  about 
  the 
  true 
  state 
  of 
  the 
  matter. 
  The 
  Syngnathidce 
  

   is 
  another 
  subject 
  of 
  perplexity, 
  to 
  which, 
  unfortunately, 
  

   Day 
  has 
  added 
  his 
  stone 
  to 
  the 
  already 
  huge 
  cairn 
  of 
  

   confusion. 
  What 
  is 
  gained 
  by 
  the 
  names 
  Siphonostoma 
  and 
  

   Nerophis, 
  introduced 
  by 
  this 
  author 
  over 
  Syngnathus, 
  the 
  

   name 
  by 
  which 
  the 
  genus 
  was 
  previously 
  known? 
  Until 
  a 
  

   good 
  and 
  sufficient 
  reason 
  be 
  given 
  for 
  their 
  adoption, 
  I 
  

   will 
  keep 
  to 
  the 
  old 
  appellation. 
  

  

  The 
  question 
  has 
  been 
  asked, 
  Why 
  this 
  continued 
  chang- 
  

   ing 
  of 
  names 
  ? 
  Nothing 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  gained 
  by 
  it 
  ; 
  and 
  

   the 
  only 
  result 
  I 
  can 
  see 
  is 
  that 
  the 
  various 
  writers 
  on 
  

   British 
  Ichthyology 
  are 
  less 
  clearly 
  understood, 
  and, 
  in 
  some 
  

   cases, 
  utterly 
  incomprehensible. 
  That 
  being 
  so, 
  the 
  words 
  

   of 
  Professor 
  Sir 
  W. 
  H. 
  Flower 
  are 
  here 
  most 
  appropriate 
  : 
  

   " 
  Ill-considered 
  attempts 
  at 
  precision 
  of 
  nomenclature 
  are 
  

   often 
  sources 
  of 
  confusion 
  and 
  future 
  difficulty. 
  As 
  Huxley 
  

   has 
  truly 
  said, 
  'It 
  is 
  better 
  for 
  science 
  to 
  accept 
  a 
  faulty 
  

  

  name, 
  which 
  has 
  the 
  merit 
  of 
  existence, 
  than 
  to 
  burden 
  

  

  O 
  

  

  