DISCUSSION OP SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. 167 



wore based on different specimens, a theory accepted without criticism by later writers, but 



which we can not believe a true one. 



Kisso was a careful and experienced worker, and it would be unjust to the memory of 

 one of the best Italian ichthyologists to admit that he could be guilty of such an error. 

 Then, too, he states positively that he had only a single specimen. It is much more prob- 

 able that the German typesetter, in the office of Wiegmann's Archiv, mistook a " 7" for a 

 "9" in Risso's manuscript. 



Bisso's figure is a good one of a young N~. mediterraneus, and his description agrees 

 with it perfectly with the exception of this one figure in the text. 



The specimen described and figured by G-iinther under the name X. mediterraneus is 

 not a Mediterranean form, but one from the southern Pacific, and has been referred by us 

 to a new genus and species. Moreau is in error in referring the figures of Bloch and of 

 Cuvier and Valenciennes to this species (see discussion under NotacantUus nasus). 



X. Bonapartii was describedunder the name X. mediterraneus, by DeFilippi and Verany 

 in 1857 from a specimen obtained at Nice, and preserved in the Zoological Museum at Turin. 

 Two others from the same locality, referred by Moreau to this species, are in the Museum 

 in Paris. The Travailleur and Talisman obtained four additional individuals: one from 

 the coast of Soudan, at a depth of 1,232 meters, and another from the same region at 932 

 meters; two from the Banc D'Arguin at 1,495 meters. These last have been made the sub- 

 ject of an elaborate description by Vaillant, who also publishes a good figure. 



This species is distinguished from X. sexspinis (Fig. 192 A, B), described by Richard- 

 son from Australian seas (Voyage Erebus and Terror, Fishes, 54, pl.xxxn, Figs. 4-11), and 

 subsequently described by Gunther, who also gives an excellent figure (Challenger Report 

 xxn, 243, id. lxi, Fig. a), by various characters, most striking of which is the difference 

 in the relationships of the position of the dorsal spines and the soft anal fin. In X. sex- 

 sjiinis the dorsal and soft anal do not pass the same vertical, whereas in JV. mediterraneus 

 the last three dorsal spines are placed over the anterior part of the soft anal. 



The type of X. mediterraneus from Nice was examined by Giglioli at the Turin Museum 

 in 1882. Its total length is 203 millimeters, and its radial formula D. G/l; A. 12/132?: V. 

 3-4/8; C. .->.'. 



Prof. Giglioli informs us that in his "Central Collection of Italian Vertebrata" at 

 Florence he has four specimens of X. Bonapartii, as follows: 



a. Nice, August 11, 1882. Total length 153 millimeters. D. 8/1; A. 6-7/120; V. 3/6-7; p. 9-10; C. 3-4?. A 



large, curved spine in upper corner of mouth on either side. 



b. Nice, March 7,1891. Total length 205 millimeters. D. 7/1; A. 14-120; V. 3 7; P. 12; C. 4?. Buccal 



spines hidden in skin. 



c. Nice, June 15, 1892. Total length 203 millimeters. D. 7/1; A. 8?/140; V. 3/5-7; P. 10-12. Buccal spines 



large and prominent. 



d. Syracuse, 1855-60?. D. 7/1; A. 11/25; P. 9-10; V. 3/5. 



Another specimen, collected by Bellotti at Messina, December 12, 1S82, and now in the 

 Museo Civico at Milan, was examined by Giglioli, who states that it was 104 millimeters 

 long, and had D. 7/1; A. 7/?; V. 3/6; P. 10-12; C. 51. 



NOTACANTHUS PHASGANORCS. GoODE. (Figure 186.) 



Xotacanthus phasyanorus, Goode, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., in.. Big. 31. 535, Apr. 18, 1881. — Gunther, Chal- 

 lenger Report, xxn, 249. — Jordan and Gilbert, Hull, xvi, U. S. Nat. .Mus., 900. — Vaillant, Exp. Sei. 



Travailleur et Talisman. 31S, <■/ s../. 



A Xotarantlnis. with its body a little higher over the veutrals than over pectorals, and 

 comparatively elongated; with its lateral line slightly arched above the pectorals, sinking 

 to median line of body in advance of first dorsal spines, and its last dorsal spine over the 

 fifth from the last anal spine. 



Its body is much compressed, it greatest width slightly more than one-third heigh! of 

 the body at vent. Scales round, thin, flexible, very small upon the head (not wider than 

 the diameter of one of the dorsal spines) but upon the anterior half of the body about three 

 times as large, decreasing in size upon posterior half, until upon tail they are smaller than 



