OILLAROO. 
241 
acknowledged, however, as a delicate fish for the table; and, 
as in some rare instances, it has been suffered to grow to 
twenty-four pounds, it may sometimes rival even the Salmon 
in the esteem of the epicure. 
That eminent physiological anatomist, John Hunter, remarks 
of the stomach of this fish that it cannot justly be ranked as 
a gizzard, as it is sometimes described, since it wants some of 
the most essential characters of that organ, which are — a power 
and motion fitted for grinding, and the horny cuticle. But 
the stomach of the Gillaroo is more circumscribed than that of 
most fish — better adapted for small food, and endued with 
sufficient strength to break the shells of small shell-fish, which 
will most pi'obably be best done by having more than one in 
the stomach at a time, and also by taking pretty large and 
smooth stones into the stomach, which will answer the purpose 
of breaking, but not so well that of grinding. But this 
stomach can scarcely possess any power of grinding, as the 
whole cavity is lined with a fine villous coat, the internal 
surface of which appears everywhere to be digestive, and by 
no means fitted for mastication. The stomach of the English 
Trout is exactly of the same species with that of the Gillaroo, 
but its coat is not so thick by two thirds. To this Professor 
Owen adds, (Lectures, part 1, p. 234,) that “it is the ascending 
or pyloric half of the bent or siphonal stomach that has its 
muscular parietis unusually thickened, by which it is enabled 
to bruise the shells of the small fluviatile testaceans that 
abound in the streams in which this variety of Trout is 
peculiar.” It has been believed that this Trout is confined to 
Ireland, where, indeed, it is so generally distributed, that it 
would be superfluous to specify any particular rivers or lakes; 
but I am informed by Charles W. Peach, Esq., who has long 
resided at Wick, that it is found also in Scotland, at least in 
n small loch near Inchnadamff Assynt, in Sutherland. 
Of two examples laid side by side, one was more slender 
towards the tail than the other; but the one selected for 
description measured ten inches in length, whereas instances 
are mentioned where this fish has measured nearly thirty 
inches, with a weight of about twenty pounds; but compared 
with the Common Trout it is always far stouter, and much 
more robust. Depth of the specimen in front of the dorsal 
VOL, IV. 2 I 
