88 THE RETROSPRCT. 



appearances of the plant. I have looked in vain for a figure in Dr. Hassol's "British Fresh- 

 Water Algae."— A. Ixgpen, 12, Shawfleld- Street, Clielsea, February 17th., 1853. 



Colias Edusa in Scotland. — I beg to inform your readers, in respect to the specimen of Collas 

 Hdusa mentioned in the proceedings of the Natui-al Ilistory Society of Glasgow, at page 38 of 

 the current volume of "The Naturalist," that it is not the first instance of its occurrence in 

 Scotland, a specimen having been taken near Lamlash, Isle of Arran, on the 3rd. of September, 

 1847, by Wy\'ille T. C. Thompson Esq., and recorded in the "Zoologist" for 18-48, page 1985.— 

 K. F. Logan, Duddingston, February 8th., 1853. 



Orthagoriscus Mola. — I sent you a notice of the Orthagoriscus Mola, under the name of 0. 



tnmcatus, a fact which I. thought worthy of recording, from the comparative rarity of that 



fish; I now write to explain how it was that I recorded an erroneous statement as a fact; 



but the whole history will be necessary before the circumstance can be explained. Mr. John 



Longmuir, Jun., says "That he was induced to correct a few mistakes in the account ;" he then 



commences to say that the fish was taken on the 17th. of September last. Now I surely 



made no mistake in this, for I do not say when it was caught, unless he takes the 22nd. of 



September for it, which was the time I wrote my note to you. If he does so, I cannot help 



his indiscrimination. The first information that I got of the fish, was two days after it was 



taken, when a fisherman came to me, asking if I could tell him the name of a very strange 



fish which was exhibiting in the market-place. I asked him what it was like ; and from the 



rough, but generally good description of the man, I told him that I thought it was the 



"Sun-fish." I theu showed him some plates of fishes, and that of the Orthagorisci, which 



he said was like it. He said that the Eev. Mr. Longmuir and his son had been down and 



examined it. I told him I would come on Monday night, and examine it for them, which I 



did, but the fish was gone. I then went immediately to the Rev. Mr. L., to see what he had 



made of it, when his son told me that it was the 0. truncatus, and gave me some little 



description of it, which agreed nearly with that of the fisherman, which I sent to you; but 



the notice in your last number says, "that the Rev. Mr. L. thoroughly examined it, and 



ascertained its dimensions and weight;" but he should have also added, and considered it the 



0. truncatus; and as an evidence of this fact, a description of it appeared in the Aberdeen 



paper and the "Witness of Edinburgh, under the name of 0. truncatus, by the Rev. Mr. L. ; 



but still I had my doubts respecting the fact, and that was the reason why I put the expression, 



"and have also seen the 0. Mola taken at Aberdeen :" it would have been a strange circumstance 



if I had once seen the fish, but could not identify it again. However, it was well for me 



that I shortly after went to Montrose, for the purpose of visiting some friends there, who first 



accosted me about the blunder that was in the public papers, calling the fish by its wrong 



name, and how none of the naturalists at Aberdeen could name it. I told them that I had 



not seen it, but had sent a notice to "The Naturalist" that it was the 0. truncatus, on the 



authority of the Rev. Mr. L. They said that they had the fish, and that James Campbell, 



the Curator of their Museum, was preparing it for the Arbroath one, I then went with Messrs. 



Kerr, Croal, and Campbell to examine it, and found it, on the first inspection, to be the 0. 



Mola. I was sorry for the mistake, but I did not wish to cast a doubt on the good judgment 



and knowledge in Natural History of the Rev. Mr. L., so I thought it remained for him to 



correct the eiTor, not me, who did not commit it, but merely took it upon his authority ; and 



so he has done in the person of his son. On my return, I told it at our Natural History 



Society ; some of the members no doubt conveyed the information to him, that the fish which 



he called the 0. truncatus was the 0. Mola. Four months after, he appears in "The Naturalist," 



saying, "that on consulting "Yarrell's British Fishes," there was not the slightest difficulty 



in determining the species to be the 0. Mola-" and he gives for his reason in coming to this 



conclusion, the diflference of "the figures of the two fishes in that work." But I may ask, 



why did he not see that resemblance when he and his father called it the 0. truncatus? and 



as to what the excellent "Manual" of the Rev. L. Jenyns'says, the same question might be put. 



As for the error in the measurement, that may have occun-ed from my misunderstanding the 



fisherman while giving me the account. I would not have even taken notice of this had there 



not been, as may be seen, something more in it than the mere misnaming a fish, and I am 



glad that your "Retrospect" now allows such error as I am said to have made to be corrected. — 



James Taylor, Pitmixton, February 10th., 1853. 



