334 
MU. F. DAY ON NORFOLK EELS. 
(a ravenous feeder, but rarely if ever taken in the Eel-sets, and 
which is non-migratory) ; these are the best known, hut there are 
other less marked varieties. Both the above-mentioned are females : 
the first the fertile form, the latter certainly barren, hut whether 
or not permanently so is at present unknown. Another A^ariety 
may he the male, but this also is uncertain, for I believe so 
far as is now known, male Eels have only been obtained from 
brackish Avaters. Hitherto I have never been successful in 
obtaining a male specimeir, and until very recently they Averc 
absolutely unknown. 
In the land-locked piece of Avater knoAvn as Saham Mere, are 
found some Eels of very remarkable appearance, Avhich are knoAvn 
by the natives as “ fresli-Avater congers.” One hundred and fifty 
years ago Blomfield refers to them, and says that from their 
ugliness the natives very ungallantly call them “old Avoinen.” As 
these Eels have never, so far as I am aware, been submitted for 
examination to any authority, I Avas very glad in June, 1886, Avhen 
through the kindness of Mr. Arthur Partridge, of Saham, three 
specimens Avere sent to Mr. Stevenson, to have the opportunity of 
sending them to Mr. Francis Day of Cheltenham, Avho has very 
kindly contributed to the Society the report which follows. 
It Avill he observed that Mr. Day does not draAv any conclusions 
from the examination of these singular Eels, for the reason given 
(Avant of sufficient material), but it is worthy of note that all the 
specimens Avere taken from the same land-locked piece of Avater of 
limited extent, and on the same day, and remarkably as they 
undoubtedly differed from each otlier externally, it appears almost 
impossible that three distinct species of Eel should inhabit this 
jMere, and seems to indicate that the common Eel is subject to 
very extreme variations, Avhich are either sexual or are induced by 
the circumstances of their environment. — T. Southavell.] 
Having received from Mr. SoutliAvell three Eels in June, 1886, 
captured in Norfolk, I purpose giving a detailed description of 
them, shoAving hoAV they individually differ, and Avith AAdiat 
published forms they can he identified. I do not propose entering 
into the question of Avhether they are local races or distinct species, 
as for that purpose far more materials are necessary than are at my 
disposal. I trust, hoAvever, at some future date, and after I have 
