Mr. Thompson on Fishes new to Ireland, 349 



the descriptions of Bloch, Montagu, Fleming, or Jenyns. Mr. 

 Yarrell not having a specimen for examination, states on the 

 authority of Risso " that the first spinous ray of the first dorsal 

 fin is the longest" (Brit. Fish. v.i. p. 51), and so figures it; 

 but in both the specimens under consideration, the 2nd ray of 

 that fin is longest, thus corresponding in this important cha- 

 racter with Pennant's figure of the species. See Red Gur- 

 nard in Brit. Zool., v. iii. pi. 57. ed. 1776, and pi. 66. ed. 1812. 



In the Magazine of Natural History for September 1836 

 (p. 463) Mr. Couch has given u a description of the character- 

 istics^ a kind of Trigla, hitherto confounded with T, Blochii" 

 As it is from the description only of this species that the opi- 

 nion of Mr. Couch was formed, it may be stated, as affording 

 additional evidence of the correctness of his views, that after 

 a critical comparison of the specimens under consideration 

 with his description, I am satisfied — although the great dis- 

 parity in size between the English and Irish specimens may 

 be considered insufficient to warrant such a conclusion — that 

 they are distinct. 



The more prominent differences are — in the form of the 

 snout ; in the body of my specimens being very much rougher 

 than that of T. Hirundo, with which Mr. Couch's fish agrees 

 in this respect ; in their lateral line being strongly and acutely 

 serrated, although in the individual described by this gentle- 

 man, it " is but faintly though distinctly roughened." 



Finally, it may be observed, with reference to this last fish 

 being " hitherto confounded with T. Blochii" that the exami- 

 nation of my specimens convinces me that the T. Cuculus of 

 Bloch, Cuvier, Pennant*, Montagu, Fleming and Jenyns re- 



T. Cuculus and T. Gurnardus, there is nothing said of a difference in the 

 length of the rays of the 1st D. fin. The " exactitude" of Pennant is at the 

 same time acknowledged, although he represents the 2nd ray of this fin to 

 be the longest, as Risso does the 1st. From this I should infer that Risso 's 

 character of " radiis pinna dorsali anteriore longissimus" has been over- 

 looked. And besides, Bloch 's figure of the T. Cuculus, exhibiting the 1st 

 and 2nd rays of this fin of equal length, is criticised by Cuv. and Val., and 

 no remark made upon this discrepancy. Neither in Bloch's description is 

 it stated that this species differs from other Triglce in the relative length of 

 these fin-rays. 



* Between the figures and descriptions of Bloch and Pennant there is 

 some disparity ; the latter author describes two spines on each side of the 

 snout, the former four, which number my specimens possess. Bloch de- 

 scribes the lateral line as consisting of " ecailles epaisses, larges,"&c, which 

 mine exhibit; whilst Pennant observes that "the side-line [is] nearly 



