REPORT ON THE PELAGIC FISHES. 23 



dilHculties preseut themselves as regards the number of scales, which in young specimens 

 are extremely thin and deciduous, and 'were mostly lost in the examples examined by 

 Thompson, Richardson, and myself. The discrepancies in the statement as to the course 

 of the lateral line, and the presence or absence of vomerine teeth, are likewise to be 

 accounted for by the indifferent condition of the examples examined; and, finally, the 

 black colour of the fins is a character which is absent in young specimens, but becomes 

 more conspicuous with age. 



Fully adult examples were first obtained by Lieut. -Col. S. R. Tickell, who in 1865 

 described them in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, p. 32, accompanying the description with a 

 figure which, but for the selling, would be a verj- good representation of the fish. The 

 author was not .sufficiently acquainted with the literature, and therefore described the 

 fish as new, naming it Asthenurus atripinnis ; however, the synonymy was rectified 

 immediately afterwards by myself in the Zool. Record, 1866, p. 197. Tickell dis- 

 covered the existence of vomerine teeth, and of an air-l:)ladder ; and although he denies 

 the presence of a " lateral line," he expressly mentions and figures a ." mesial groove with 

 a ridge along each side," which groove is, in fact, the lateral line. 



Singularly, the same specimens, which had been depjosited by Tickell in the Calcutta. 

 Museum, were described again as new by Mr. F. Day (Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1869,. 

 p. 522), as " Brer/maceros atripinnis, n. sp." The presence of vomerine teeth and a 

 lateral line are denied in the diagnosis given by the author. Two pyloric appendages 

 were found in this fish by the same author.^ 



A second and very distinct form was discovered in New Zealand and described by 

 ]Mr. Hutton in 1873,'^ under the name of Calloptilum j^unctatum. He states (correctly 

 as I now think) that this fish should be placed into a distinct genus, but his description,, 

 as well as figure, were by no means satisfactory. Having received a half-grown specimen 

 of this fish in 1876, I corrected Mutton's description in several points, expressing it as 

 my opinion that "' it should not be generically se])aTated ivom Bregmaceros macdeUo.ndii," 

 an opinion whicli, with perfect and adult specimens before me, I am obliged to abandon. 



Lastly, the relation of these fishes is treated of by Mr. F. Day again in 1877.^ He 

 treats of Brer/maceros macclellandii and Brerjmaceros atripinnis as two distinct species, 

 refers erroneously CaUojjtilum j^vjictuturn as a synonym of the latter, and misrepresents 

 me as having identified the New Zealand fish with Bregraaceros maccIeUaudii.* 



Quite recently a fish apparently allied to these Indo-Pacific forms has been described 

 by Messrs. Brown Goode and Bean,* from the Mid Atlantic, under the name of 



' Proc. Zool f^or. Lort'1., 1873, p. 1 12. 



- Trans, and Proc. JS''^i'; Zealand Insf., vol. v. p. 267, pi. xi., 1873. 

 ■'' FUhe.= of India. 



* I mu-t also demur to this author crediting me with the grammatically erroneous term of " Brtymaceros punctatum." 

 Bregmaceros, formed like Rhinoaros, is of the masculine gender. 

 5 Ball M".>. Comp. Zool, vol. xii. p. 165, 18b6. 



