OCR Text |
Show 1870.] IN THE GROWTH OF SALMON. 37 taken from Dr. Giinther's catalogue; but the upper and lower transverse or oblique series of scales are expressed here in separate columns, and the numbers within brackets are extremes incidentally noted in his description of typical specimens in the collection. TABLE A. ?, Zool. Soc. spec. No. 1. ?, Zool. Soc. spec- No. 2. trutta carpio (Lake Garda) rapii (Lake Constance) lacustris (Lake Constance)... Vertebrae. 59 59 60 59-60 59 59-60 57-58 57-59 59-60 60-61 Pyloric appendages. 53-70 48-50 [46]49-61 39-47 33-46 38-47 [51] 40-50 45-52 48-54 60-61 Scales. Horiz. series immediately above lat. line. 120 120-122 120 120[117] 120-125[117-130] 120[124] 120[117-127] 123 115-128 120 120 Transv. series. Dorsal fin to lat. line (obliquely). 22-26 19 (21 ?) 22 24-26[30] 27[25-28] 27-30[26] 26-30[23-31] 26-28-36 27-35 26-30 Lateral line to ventral fin (obliquely). 19-22 18 36-34[22] 38-40[20-24] [22] [21-27] Tested by the number of vertebrae, the doubtful specimens iu question may either be S. salar or any other of the species enumerated, excepting S. fario ausonii. The numerical excess or diminution of the pyloric appendages points in the present case to the probability that the two fish are not Salmon. The numbers 48-50 are considerably below the minimum of S. salar, but come within the range of the Central-European Lake Salmonoids-to wit, the four last mentioned in the table; likewise S. trutta. One of the most constant characters is said by Dr. Gunther to be the size and consequently relative numbers of the scales. In our specimens the horizontal series of these, 120-122, does not exclude the notion of their being Salmon ; neither does it show if they are, or are not, specifically separate. The numbers, however, do not tally with the minimum or maximum of several of the species (vide Table A),' and in this rather agree than otherwise with S. salar. Of the transverse or, rather, somewhat oblique series of scales superior to the longitudinal medio-lateral line, and counted in a row from the dorsal fin to the said lateral line, one specimen (that designated No. 1, P. Z. S. 1868, p. 251) possesses nineteen, possibly more, as shall presently be explained ; the other specimen (No. 2, I. ci) twenty-two. The latter number is given by Dr. Gunther as the numerical minimum of S. salar; the former falls three short of it. Hence, as regards this differentiating character, No. 1 apparently |