IvVCODIN^. 83 



The heiglit over tin.- aims is 4,1—5 "j^ of the total length. The head, whose 

 length is 12,9—13,3 ° ,, of the total length, is not particnlarh- broad, the trunk is some- 

 what compressed; the tail becomes much compressed and loses gradually in height 

 towards the end. The lower jaw extends almost to the end of the upper. 7 pits for 

 the lateral line along the upper jaw and under the eye. The distance between the 

 snout and the anus is 27,6—30,4 " „ of the total length. The distance of the dorsal 

 fin from the snout is 17,6—18,2 ",, of the total length. The colour uniform yellow- 

 brown. The scales are distributed over the tail and trunk, whilst the head and fins 

 are naked. Lateral line double, dixided into a \'eiitral and medio lateral branch, the 

 latter however frequentl\- indistinct. Pyloric appendages not de\eloped. Size 

 181 111 m. 



D. 118— 126. A. 100 — 104'). P. 13 — 15. 



Distribution. The cold area off west Xorwav, east from Iceland, and in the 

 Foeroe Channel; 340 — 620 fathoms. 



Remarks on the S }• n o n y m y. 



Lycodes mni-csna was established bv Collett for a 140 nini. long specimen of an elongated Lycodes, which the North- 

 Atlantic Expedition of 1877 took in the ice-cold waters off Helgeland in Norway, at 350 fathoms depth. In 1878, off Bear 

 Island and Spitzbergen, in ice-cold water and from depths of 459 — 65S fathoms, the North-Atlantic Expedition got 3 other 

 specimens (112 — 19S mm.) hkewise of a very elongated Lycode, which Collett referred to the same species, as he considered 

 certain differences as less essential and a sign of the variability of the species. From a stndy of the figures 29, 30 and 31 of 

 the chief publication of the North-Atlantic Expedition's Fishes I got however the impression that - if the figures were 

 correct — they could not belong to one and the same species: figs. 29 and 31 must represent another species than fig. 30, 

 which formed the tj^je-specinien from the 1S77 cruise of the North-Atlantic F^xpedition. 



After I had had the opportunity, through the kindness of Prof. Collett. to examine 2 of the specimens of the 

 North-Atlantic Expedition, namely the type-specimen from 1877 and one of the specimens (not figured) from 1S78, my pre- 

 supposition became a certainty: the specimens from the 1878 cruise of the North- Atlantic Expedition ought to form a species 

 by themselves, belonging to the genus Lycodonus Goode & Bean (cf. p. 95) and this I proposed to name L. flagellicauda. 

 To this form further are to be referred, the specimens obtained by the English expeditions of the « Knight Errant» and 

 <: Triton, in the Faroe Channel, and which Giinther referred to Lycodes murcena Coll. (the figures in Chall. Report leave no 

 doubt about the matter), and also the specimens from the Ingolf Expedition referred to I. murana Coll., which were taken 

 north of the Iceland-Faroe ridge^). Of the true Lycodes mura:nai., which ought to be referred to the genus Lycenche/ys 

 Gill, only the type-specimen was known until a short time ago, but during the revision of m\- manuscript 1 have further been 

 able to study 2 specimens, taken by the ..Michael Sars , the one (145 mm. long, in 1900 F:. from Iceland, the other (181 mm. 

 long) in 1902 in the Fseroe Channel. 



A detailed comparison will vindicate the necessity of the intended separation. 



Comparison between Lycenchelys nmrcBna Coll. and Lycodonus flagellicauda m. 

 The form of the body is throughout more elongated in L. flagellicatida ; in L. murcBna 

 namel}-, the height over the anus is 4,1— 5"'o of the total length, in specimens of L. flagellicauda of 

 similar size 3,4—4,4%. In other regards also the form is essentially different. L. murcsna is a com- 

 pressed form: the trunk is already (if not distended by sexual products) somewhat thinner than high, and 

 the tail quicklv becomes strongly compressed; close behind the anus, the thickness is to the height 



1) Accordiuo- to Collett \). iiS, A. loo; according to my obsen,-atious in another specimen D. 126, A. 104. 



2) But not the large specimen from Davis Straits, because it forms a distinct species both from L. murmna and from 

 L. flagellicavda : Lycenchelys higolfianus (see p. 901. Nor the young specimen from the Atlantic .S. from Iceland; though it 

 stands very close to L. flagellicauda, it represents in my opinion quite a separate species: Lycodonus ophidium (cf. p. 971. 



11* 



