I 1 LATE XCVIII. 
tells us, among other particulars, that the White-bait “ neitl e: 
belongs to the Shad nor the Sprat, as is evident from the number of 
branchiostegous rays, which in those are eight, in this (the White- 
bait) only three.” This remark is incorrect : the branchiostegous rays 
were uniformly eight in number in at least fifty specimens we ex- 
amined, with the view of ascertaining the fact exactly. The fish 
represented in our Plate as just emerging above the surface of the 
Water to seize its prey, has the gill membrane expanded, in order to 
render those brancheostegous rays apparent, The number of those 
rays determines at once that it cannot be of the Cyprinus genus, 
which is distinguished by having only three such rays, instead of 
ei ght. Mr. Pennant further remarks, that “ it is impossible to class 
fbis fish with certainty;” but in what respect this ambiguity consists 
is not for us to say. The White-bait certainly possesses every cri- 
lerion of the species, as evidently as the parent, or full grown fish. 
Its outline is the same, the fins are alike ; it exhibits the same serra- 
tions on the abdomen, and cleft on the snout ; and what is even 
remarkable in a fish of this small size, the lateral range of dusky 
spots are perceptible through the beautiful silver scales, as in the 
i ar ger fish. It exhibits in a word a mod perfect but diminished figure 
°f the common shad, not a solitary character excepted. 
From the above detail, we conceive there cannot remain the 
slightest hesitation in removing the White-bait from the Cyprinus 
fo the Clupea genus, and restoring it to its parent species. So per- 
fectly were we satisfied of its propriety, that having previously 
gwen a Plate of the Shad, we had been almost induced to wave in- 
erting this little fish in the present work. Conceiving, however, 
0tl further reflection, that by introducing it to notice, with an ac- 
cuiate representation of the fish, in the size it is usually known by 
vot,. V. 
D 
