The spotted Eagle Ray. 315 



and fewer, larger, and more widely spaced spots; further, the posterior 

 appendages, tail, and ventral fins are much more markedly separated from 

 each other and from the hinder part of the pectorals. His plate is herein 

 reproduced as figure 8, plate iv. Dumeril states that 50 spots on the 

 pectorals averaged 8 to 9 mm. in diameter, while 100 spots from the same 

 region in A. narinari averaged 4 to 6 mm. 



In 1869, Gunther found a spotted ray from the Bay of Panama to be 

 almost identical with the foregoing, differing from it only in that "the soft 

 rostral appendage is naturally turned upwards like the nose-leaf in certain 

 Chiroptera, and is not stretched forward as represented by M. A. Dumeril." 

 This may be true of this form, but fresh Key West and Beaufort specimens 

 have the snout almost straight (see figures in plate vi). Specimens in 

 formalin have the rostral parts somewhat distorted, the snout being more 

 tilted than in nature. Specimens kept in a barrel had the snouts badly 

 distorted by pressure against the sides of the barrel. Gunther's preserved 

 specimen had probably suffered in the same way. 



In 1870 volume 8 of Gunther's "Catalogue of the Fishes in the British 

 Museum" appeared and in 1880 his "Guide to the Study of Fishes" was 

 published. In neither is there reference to any Aetobatine other than 

 narinari, A. latirostris being made a synonym of A. narinari. 



Whether or not these rather marked differences are weighty enough 

 to constitute this west African form a separate species, the writer is too 

 little versed in taxonomy to say, and when so great an authority as Gunther 

 pronounces adverse judgment, he can but keep silent. It should be noted, 

 however, that Gill (1867) recognized that his A. laticeps is very near to 

 A. latirostris, and further let it be remembered that Jordan (1895 and 1898) 

 finally rejects A. laticeps as not being specifically different from A. narinari. 



UNESTABLISHED GENERA AND SPECIES. 



It will be recalled that in 1816, Blainville enumerated ten species under 

 the genus Aetobatus. Of these narinari and flagellum seem to be genuine, 

 while filicaudatus, 7iichhofii, ocellatus, fosteri, etc., seem to fall under other 

 genera of the family Myliobatidae or may possibly be duplicate names of other 

 Aetobatines. 



In 1823, Temminck published a letter from Van Hasselt, in which the 

 latter speaks of establishing a new species, Myliohatus cyclura, very similar 

 to Russell's spotted ray. The language is so obscure and the description 

 so imperfect that I have been able to make out only the fact that Van 

 Hasselt thought that he had a ray differing from Russell's ray only in 

 specific characters. This reference seems to be entirely isolated. 



Richardson (1846), in his "Ichthyology of China," lists a ray under 

 this heading " ? Alyliobatis oculeus.'" His description is taken from an 

 unpublished drawing in Reeves's collection. He is undecided whether 

 this beautifully spotted ray is "a Myliobatis or Aetobatis which is perhaps 

 only a variety of AI. maculatiis.'" He did not see the fish and hence could 



