The Spotted Eagle Ray. 257 



taken into account, it is unmistakably Aetohatus narinari. But if compar- 

 ison is made with Marcgrave's original figure, the water-color drawing 

 shown in figure 3, plate ii, the excellence of the latter will be greatly 

 emphasized. 



As indicated above, the older writers merely copy Marcgrave, and those 

 who do not do worse, for quite a number of them, notably Bloch, apply the 

 name narinari to rays which are not only not Aetobatids but in some cases 

 not even Myliobatids. It will be remembered that Euphrasen declared his 

 figure of the spotted sting ray to be much superior to Willughby's, which is 

 merely Marcgrave's figure redrawn and somewhat touched up. But if the 

 figure in question (fig. 5, plate iii) be compared with my photograph or 

 Dumeril'fc drawing oi Aetohatus narinari or Marcgrave's water-color drawing, 

 some extremely grave faults will be revealed. 



In figure 5, plate in, body, head, and pectorals seem to be on a level. 

 Both the anterior and posterior edges of the wings are too flat in outline, 

 while the ventral fins are shown as bifurcated backward prolongations of the 

 body. Inspection of figure i, plate i, shows them to be short and clearly 

 marked off from the body. The dorsal fin is too long and is wrongly inserted. 

 Figure i, plate i, does not show it clearly, but text-figure 3 (from Jordan and 

 Evermann) shows both size and position properly. Where Euphrasen got the 

 fringed edges of the pectoral and ventral fins is inexplicable. It is, however, 

 probable that his figure was drawn from a much shrunken, dried or preserved 

 specimen in which the fin rays were very prominent; but even that would 

 not account for their extending beyond the substance of the body proper. 

 Inspection of figure i, plate i, shows that the fins in question possess slightly 

 notched edges but nothing more. Attention is also called to the exag- 

 gerated size of the spots, to their relatively small number, and to the fact 

 that there are practically none on the head ; also to the position of the spir- 

 acles and eyes, which are dorsal instead of lateral, the eyes in the fresh 

 specimen not being visible from above. Further the snout is too short, 

 too narrow, and too much on a level with the main part of the head. 



Russell's (1803) Eel Tenkee (fig. 6, plate iii) is a good drawing with 

 some rather apparent defects from the standpoint of my specimens. The 

 body is too flat, and the head especially so; the anterior parts lack spots, 

 and the eyes are too prominent ; posteriorly the line of demarcation between 

 pectorals and ventrals is continued too far forward. However, the crenate 

 posterior edges of the fins are correctly shown. This drawing was made by 

 a native artist, but Russell especially vouches for the accuracy of the details. 



Dumeril's elegant figures (fig. 8, plate iv) have already been referred 

 to on page 252. For the reasons noted elsewhere it seems to me that A, 

 Aetohatus latirostris is not (as Gunther asserts) A. narittari, but that B 

 (lower left head) is narinari. The drawing was evidently made from a 

 preserved specimen, in which by drying or hardening the flesh had sunk 

 over the anterior fontanelle of the skull. The position of the spiracles is 

 for the same reason somewhat distorted. 



