206 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP 



Mr. Jenyns* was inclined to adopt Dr. Fleming's opinion " that the first 

 specimen of Hoy was a distinct species, if not belonging to a different genus. 

 There can be no doubt that the one described above (Hoy's second specimen) 

 was a true Trichiurus, and probably T. Lepturus of Linnaeus and other authors ; 

 but as the description is rather imperfect, and the species of this genus ill 

 determined, it is impossible to speak with certainty on this last point." 



Yarrellf especially alluded to the median lateral line and lateral bands, and 

 remarked that " it is evident that more information on the subject is required; 

 the result of it may be the establishment of Mr. Hoy's second fish as a new 

 species of Trichiurus, and of his first fish, which is evidently distinct from 

 the second, as the type of a new genus, if, as Dr. Fleming has suggested, it 

 was not a mutilated example of the Deal-fish of the Arcadians, Gyninetrus 

 arclicus." 



With enlarged opportunities for arriving at a possible decision concerning 

 at least the second specimen, I proceed to institute inquiries into the nature 

 of these materials. The form and approximately the proportions noticed by 

 Hoy, the "operculum on each side" of the mouth, simulated by the supra- 

 maxillars, the soft dorsal rays, the bristles at the end of the tail, the strongly 

 marked straight lateral line appear to indicate, as Fleming has suggested, 

 that Hoy had before him, in his first specimen, a much injured example of 

 Trachypterus with most of its fins destroyed, and it is probable that a hole, 

 caused by the caducous ventral fin3, mighthave been mistaken for the anus jt 

 this may seem very remarkable, but it is evident that Mr. Hoy has not the 

 slightest claim to scientific consideration, and the bole so created in Trachyp- 

 terus would correspond in space to the " anus" discovered by that gentleman. 

 A thoracic anus is incompatible with the structure of the Trachypteroids or 

 any related forms. The " blackish-green" color of the portion of the dorsal 

 remaining might have been due to discoloration, and we need not be much 

 astonished that the lateral dorsal spots were overlooked in such a specimen. 



The second specimen of Hoy evidently belonged to an entirely different type. 

 The form and " closely muiicated" belly indicate that it was related to the 

 family of Lepturoids or Trichiuroids, but the "blunt point" in which the 

 tail terminates, as well as the median lateral line, forbid us, on morphological 

 grounds alone, from referring it to Trichiurus lepturus. It might have been 

 supposed to have been a specimen of Lepidopus eaudatus, were it not for the 

 color, but that, sustained by the superior height, forbids us to refer it to that 

 species. What then can it have been? 



In the summer of 1863, I received from the learned Cuban naturalist, Prof. 

 Poey, of the University of Havana, a fish, concerning whose systematic po- 

 sition he was unable to satisfy himself. This fish was found to resemble 

 Lepidopus caudatus in all essential characters except the remarkable form of 

 the head, which was exceedingly compressed, trenchant and obliquely de- 

 curved above, with the forehead elevated above the eyes, and the chin obtuse. 

 Notwithstanding such characters, its affinity to Lepidopus was evideutly so 

 great, the form, structure of the fins, especially the anomalous form of the 

 pectorals, and the development of the opercular bones coinciding, that I 

 felt compelled to retain it in the same subfamily, in contradistinction to one 

 containing Trichiurus (= Lepturus Art.) and Eupleurogr animus. % The color 



* Jenyns, Manual 1835, p. 372. 



t YarriU, Br. Fishes, i, 1841, p. 201 (207.) 



X This same mistake, indeed, was made in the communication by Dr. Duguid to Dr. Fleming, 

 concerning the same nsh, (see Loudon's Mag. iv., 1831, pp. 215, 216,) and Dr. Fleming, himself, so 

 far from correcting the error, alluded to the similarity of the so-called vent as evidence of the 

 pertinence of Hoy's fish to the same species, (op. cit. iv., 219). By a somewhat singular coincidence, 

 the same error in identification of the Tiachypterus with the Trichiurus lepturus was made by 

 Olafsen (Voyage to Iceland, p. 592.) 



i Gill, "Synopsis of the Family of Lepturoids, and Description of a Remarkable New Generic 

 Type," in Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philadelphia, 1863, p. 224. &c. In this article I have suggested the 

 relation of Hoy's fish and Evoxymetcpov tmnxatus. 



[Sept. 



