142 OX RAY. 



or American species described by modern writers, so far as I 

 have seen, but seems referable to that described many years 

 ago, from the coast of Tuscany, by Dr. Fabroni, of Florence, 

 and figured by Lacepede under the name of Raia Fabro?iiana, 

 in honour of its discoverer. This species seems to have been 

 lost, Cuvier and most other icthyologists throwing a doubt on 

 its existence, and supposing the figure referred to to represent 

 a mutilated example of the common C. Gioma; it is therefore 

 doubly interesting to re-discover it in our own seas, as an 

 addition to the fauna, and as re-placing an old species in the 

 systems. The P. Fabroniana differs from the P. Gioma in the 

 length of the body (exclusive of the whip-like tail) being 

 nearly one half of the width from tip to tip of the pectoral 

 fins, while the length is not more than one third of the width 

 in the latter species. Besides this great proportional width of 

 P. Gioma, its pectorals are much narrower than in the present 

 fish, and nearly straight; while in the P. Fabroniana they 

 are broadly falcate, recurved, and without any fan-like margin 

 on the anterior edge. The appendage to the head forms a 

 semicylindrical process in the P. Gioma, but forms two horn- 

 like fins, one on each side of the head, in the Irish fish and 

 in Fabroni's Mediterranean one. Those are represented in the 

 figure sent to Lacepede, and engraved in his work, with, I 

 think, rather too many turns, being twisted into regular conical 

 horns; the corresponding parts in the specimen under con- 

 sideration shew also a strong tendency to roll spirally, but 

 not amounting to more than I have represented in the sketch; 

 this is, however, a matter easily exaggerated by an artist, or 

 the difference of age or sex would very probably make a 

 difference in the length and consequent enrolment of those 

 parts. 



"Dr. Fabroni's species is defined as a falciformly dilated 

 brown Ray, whitish beneath, etc. This colouring agrees 

 exactly with our specimen, but differs entirely from that of P. 

 Gioma. Another point of agreement between the two former 

 specimens is the extreme slendcrness of the tail, it not being 

 more than half the thickness of that of P. Gioma; the tail 

 in both specimens of the P. Fabroniana is defective as to all 

 that portion from the barbed spine to the tip, so that the 

 exact position or form of the spine is unknown. The figure 



