﻿40 



•ENDEAVOUK" SCIENTIFIC RESULTS 



Type Beryx affinis, Giinther. B. gerrardi, Giinther, and 

 B U)ieatus, Cuvier and \'alenciennes, also belong to this 

 genus. They are distinguished from Beryx, Cuvier (type B. 

 decadactylus, Cuv. and Val.), by having the anal shorter than 

 the dorsal and composed of only 12-14 rays instead of 26-30. 

 The bones of the head also appear to be more strongly armed, 

 and the suborbitals are broader. 



Regani has placed Beryx affinis, Giinther, and its allies in 

 the genus Hoplopteryx, Agassiz^, of which most of the species 

 are Cretaceous fossils. Judging from Woodward's restoration 

 of H. le^vesiensis,^ Mantell, however, the recent forms seem to 

 differ in having the opercular bones more strongly armed and 

 in having much smaller scales. 



Note on the genera Trachichthys, Shaw and Nodder, and 

 Hoplostethus, Cuvier and Valenciennes. — It would seem that 

 Trachichthys (type T. aiistralis, Shaw & Nodder) is a mono- 

 typic genus characterised by having three dorsal and two anal 

 spines which are placed close together, and, like the rays, are 

 entirely covered with minute asperities. Minute tuberculiform 

 teeth are crowded on the jaws, vomer and palatines. 



Giinther^ counted three spines and twelve rays in the dorsal, 

 and two spines and ten rays in the anal of the type specimen 

 of T. australis. McCoy^ describes iv./ii and iii./g (10) 

 respectively, but has mistaken the anterior rays for spines, 

 while Waite^ expressly states that there are three and not two 

 anal spines in Trachichthys. I have counted nine specimens 

 of T. australis, and find the number of spines and rays to be as 

 stated by Giinther. 



Boulenger^ has united Hoplostetliiis with Trachichthys, re- 

 garding some Australian and New Zealand species (T. inter- 

 medins. Hector, and T. elongatus, Giinther) as intermediate 

 between the two. Both these fishes, however, bear little 

 resemblance to T. australis, having four and six dorsal spines 

 and three anal spines which are well separated, and which, 

 together with the rays, are not covered with minute asperities. 

 They are much nearer to Hoplostethus (type H. mediter- 

 raneus, Cuv. & Val.), but both differ from that genus, as 

 defined by Jordan and Fowler, ^ in possessing microscopic 



1 Began— Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8), vii., 1911. p. 5. 



2 Agassiz— Poiss. Foss., iv., 1838, p. 4. 



3 Woodward— Brit. Mus. Cat. Foss. Fish., iv., 1901, p. 398, fig. 31. 



4 Gunther— Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., i., 1859. p. 10. 



5 McCoy— Prodr. Zool. Vict., 1886, pi. cxiv. 



6 Waite— Mem. Austr. Mus., iv., 1899, p. 66. 



7 Boulenger— Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7). ix., 1902, p. 202. 



8 Jordan & Fowler— Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., xxvi., 1902, p. 7. 



