778 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
Genus SCARDINIUS. 
Scales middle-sized. Lateral line complete. Lower jaw slightly projecting. Caudal lobes pointed. Length of 
the base of the anal fin more than 19 % of the distance between this fin and the tip of the snout. Distance 
between the dorsal fin and the tip of the snout less than 86 % of that between the anal fin and the same point. 
In this genus we draw still nearer to the Abra- 
inidines, a circumstance most clearly shown by the 
elongation of the base of the anal tin, as remarked in 
the above diagnosis. In all our specimens of the pre- 
ceding Leuciscines the base of the anal tin measured 
less than 7s °f the length of the body; henceforward 
it is always at least somewhat longer, except where 
cross-breeding impairs the natural form of the species. 
When Bonaparte first established this genus (merely 
as a subgenus of Leuciscus' 1 ) , adopting its title from the 
Italian name ( Scardola or Scar dine) of a species iden- 
tified by Canestrini with the Rudd * 6 , he laid most 
stress on the deep form of the body, the position of 
the dorsal fin over the space between the ventral and 
anal fins, and the carination of the ventral margin 
between the last-mentioned fins, characters all of which 
we have seen indicated in the Roach. When Heckel 
at a later period reformed the generic classification of 
the Cyprinoids, he characterized the genus Scardinius c 
chiefly by the pectination of the pharyngeal teeth as 
in the Bleaks; but we have also seen traces of this 
character in the Roach. The genus, as we understand 
it from our knowledge of a single species'*, comes so 
near Leuciscus that it can claim systematic recogni- 
tion only as a remarkable stage of transition, in the 
external form to Abramis, and in the oblique 
mouth and the pectinated pharyngeal teeth to Al- 
burnus. 
a Iconogr. Fn. Ital ., Pesci , in the description of Leuciscus squalus. r 
6 To judge by the measurements given by Canestrini (Arch. Zoo]., Anat., Fisiol., vol. IV, p. 89) of the Italian scarclola , these spe- 
cies seem, however, to be distinct. 
c Russeggers Reise, II Th., p. 1037. 
d All the five species established by Bonaparte and Heckel, which would otherwise belong to this genus, are combined into one spe- 
cies by Canestrini and Fatio; but it is quite possible that hybrid forms are thus contained within the limits of this species. 
