Dr. Bancroft on the Sea-Deinl of Jamaica, 451 



bordered with a broad black stripe proceeding from the upper jaw. 

 There were unfortunately no means at hand by which the weight of the 

 fish could be ascertained; but several competent judges estimated it at not 

 less than a ton. As the rapidity with which dead animal substances run 

 into decomposition in this climate, rendered any minute anatomical in- 

 vestigation into the structure of this fish impracticable, it was thought best 

 to have all the internal organs carefully removed and sent home preserved 

 in strong brine to the Zoological Society of London, which has accord- 

 ingly been since done ; I cannot doubt however that every requisite in- 

 formation concerning these organs will be fully and ably supplied by the 

 scientific members of the Society, to whose examination they will be 

 submitted. 



From the preceding description the fish seems to agree generally with 

 the characters assigned by Dumeril to the genus Cephalopterus, which are 

 given as follows in the Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, viz. 



Body much depressed with five or six branchial apertures on each side 

 beneath; mouth transverse and nostrils situated under and behind the 

 snout, forked in the shape of two fins supported by articulated rays; eyes 

 lateral and two spiracles behind; tail long, conical, much narrower 

 than the trunk. As applicable to our specimen, however, the terras are 

 not the happiest which define the situation of the nostrils, the form of 

 the tail and its size in relation to the trunk ; besides which, as being 

 marked distinctions between this genus and that of Raia, the mouth 

 should have been described not merely as transverse but also terminal ; 

 and the eyes as being placed widely apart on the extreme edges of the 

 head. It should moreover be observed, that teeth of a small size, less 

 even than those of the sting rays, (dents plus menues encore que celles des 

 Pastenagues,) are included by Cuvier among the generic characters of the 

 Cephalopteri, and when the marked contrast is considered which the 

 want of teeth in our fish presents, as compared with the family of the 

 Rays generally, and the very important difference moreover which the 

 having or not having teeth must create in the physical economy of 

 animals, it may reasonably be doubted whether the fish in question can 

 with propriety be classed in the same genus with fishes that are provided 

 with teeth, or whether a new genus ought not rather to be created for its 

 reception? The solution of this doubt however I shall leave to scientific 



H H 2 



