' Retrospective Criticism, 741 



feeble, frond or two, and separate pinnae as well, of Aspidium 

 i^llix mas, and leaves of elm, apple, and oak trees. Interiorly, 

 cows' hair is not scarce, and is partly inwoven with the moss 

 and laces it together, and partly mingled with the feathers. A 

 horsehair or two are also observable : the feathers, in each nest, 

 apparently those of domestic fowls, are numerous enough to 

 fill the hollow of the hand when the fingers are so folded over 

 them as not to much compress the feathers. — J. D. 



Remarks on the Figures give?i in Illustration of Two Papers 

 071 ^^ Fishes 7iew to the British Fauna," by Jonathan Couch, 

 Esq. F.L.S. &c. (Vol. V. p. 15. 311. 393.) — In an editorship 

 of five years' duration, the Conductor of the Magazine of 

 Natural History has shown himself desirous of keeping to the 

 truth of nature ; and capable of bearing reproof with good 

 temper, when fault has been found with any of his proceed- 

 ings. In the confidence that the same good feeling will be 

 exerted on the present occasion, I venture to solicit permis- 

 sion to find fault with the engraved figures that have been 

 given to illustrate my " Rare fishes, new to the British 

 Fauna." Without the following observations, they must not 

 be quoted as likenesses of the individuals they profess to 

 represent : — 



Vol.V. p. 16. fig. 2. Cilidta glauca. The eye is represented 

 too near the snout ; the ciliated membrane on the neck is also 

 too much like a fin : in fact, this organ, the use of which is 

 doubtful, is a membrane edged with loose threads, which 

 appear above the surface of the back. One of your corre- 

 spondents [Professor Rennie (p. 299.)] objects to the word 

 " midge " as a name for this species, on the plea of its being 

 previously engaged in entomology : I have, therefore, no 

 objection to substitute the term " mackarel midge," the name 

 by which it is known to our fishermen. 



rnP. 17. fig. 3. Spdrus Y^rythrinus. This figure is not copied 

 from my drawing ; but it is, on the whole, a tolerable likeness. 

 It differs from nature in being too much elevated on the 

 back ; and in wanting the semilunar mark behind each eye, 

 common to this fish and the *Sparus auratus. 



P. 18. fig. 5. ludbrus luscus. This figure is wholly unlike 

 the object sought to be represented ; and, by comparison with 

 fig. 7. p. 21. (Perca robusta), I do without hesitation express 

 my belief that the same original was copied to represent both 

 these fishes. Fig. 5. is, indeed, a good likeness of Perca ro- 

 busta ; but how unlike what, in my MS., I have designated 

 scale-rayed wrass, will appear from the figure of the latter 

 which f now send {Jg. 121.), and which accompanied my 



3 B 3 



