﻿34 "ENDEAVOUE" SCIENTIFIC RESULTS. 



Described from five specimens, about 63 mm. long, taken 

 in the estuary of the Derwent River, Tasmania, by Mr. E. 

 F. Lovett, who presented them to the Australian Museum. 

 Two other very battered specimens are in the "Endeavour" 

 collection from Storm Bay, Tasmania. They differ from 

 Giinther's description only in being rather more slender, in 

 having one ray less in the anal fin, and in the position of the 

 silvery lateral band, but I do not regard any of these as being 

 of much importance. 



Family STROM ATE I D^. 



Genus Seriolella, Guichenot. 



Seriolella brama, Gunther. 



Snotgall Trevally, TrevaUa. 



(Plate ix., fig. I.) 



Neptonemus hrama, Gunther, Brit. Mus. Cat. Fish., ii., i860, 



p. 390; id., Johnston, Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1882 



(1883), pp. 85 and 120. 

 Neptonemus? travale, Castelnau, Proc. Zool. Soc. Vict., i., 



1872, p. 119. 

 Seriolella brama, Regan, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), x., 1902, 



p. 129; id., Waite, Rec. Cantb. Mus., i., 191 1, p. 229, 



Pl- 1- 

 Notwithstanding the numerous differences appearing in the 

 two descriptions of S. brama and 5. trevale, I agree with Regan 

 that they represent but one species. I think there can be no 

 doubt that my specimens are correctly identified with 5. 

 brama, while the fact that they were recognised as the 

 common trevalla or trevally of the Melbourne markets by Mr. 

 Dannevig bears out their association with 5. trevale which 

 was originally obtained from that source. 



I have examined over a dozen specimens from various 

 localities extending from Tasmania to Port Jackson and find 

 the variation in the number of fin-rays and spines to be con- 

 siderable, as the following selected examples will show :■ — 

 (i) D. vii., i., 30; A. iii., 22; P. 21. (2) D. vii. ii., 33; A. 

 iii. 23; P. 21. (3) D. vii. ii. 26; A. iii. 21 ; P. 20. (4) D. vi. 

 ii. 32 ; A. iii. 23 ; P. 20. The lengths of the spines before the 

 second dorsal are very variable, and the second may be 

 replaced by a jointed ray. The disagreement in the propor- 

 tions of the head and body, as given by the two authors, is 

 doubtless accounted for by a different system of measuring 

 adopted by each. The depth in my specimens is about 2 '6 in 

 the length to the hypural and 3*4 in that to the tip of the 

 tail. The only other important difference is in the armature of 



