24 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



In this magazine (1892, p. 76) Mr. George Sim recorded 

 the first specimen of this little fish for the North Sea, an 

 example having been taken fourteen miles off Aberdeen on the 

 1st of October I 890. Four others were obtained off Montrose 

 in February 1891 ; and one off the Kincardineshire coast 

 in September I 891. Mr. Sim informs me that these captures 

 were made at depths ranging from 16 to 30 fathoms. 



In the above notes reference has been made, I believe, to 

 all that has been published concerning this fish. 



A very remarkable feature in the history of this species 

 is the fact that, according to our present knowledge of its 

 distribution, Triglops murrayi is entirely confined to Scottish 

 waters. It is a comparatively small species, and hence liable 

 to be overlooked perhaps regarded as a young Tn'gla, to 

 which it bears a superficial resemblance. 



An allied species, Triglops pingelii, occurs on the Nor- 

 wegian coast : the other species of the genus are Arctic fishes. 



ZEUS FABER, Linn. John Dorey. 



A specimen, 15 '3 2 inches in length, was captured off 

 Pittenweem in October 1891. Mr. Scott regards this as a 

 rare species in the Firth of Forth, where it has occurred both 

 in deep and in very shallow water. 



CARELOPHUS ASCANII (Wall).} Yarrell's Blenny. 



I obtained a specimen of this fish at North Berwick, on 

 the 9th of August 1894, which was 7.3 inches in length, and 

 weighed 43.5 grammes = 1.53 ozs. It was captured on 

 rocky ground south of Craigleith, at a depth of 10 fathoms, 

 by means of a hook baited with mussel. 



This is the first record, I believe, of the occurrence of 

 this species -within the Firth. The only other information, 

 with which I am acquainted, regarding Yarrell's Blenny as 

 a Forth fish is Dr. Wemyss Fulton's note on the capture of 

 an example two miles off the mouth of the River Tyne on 

 the i 3th of September 1889 (see "Report of the Fishery Board 

 for Scotland," 1889, part iii. p. 357). This specimen was also 

 captured on a hook and line, and the fish is said not to have 

 been previously known to take a bait. 



