BY J. DOUGLAS OGILBY. 



39 



description will I trust be pardoned on account of the condition 

 of the specimen. 



Three species of uElhoprora have already been described, the best 

 known being ^E. metopocJampa (Cocco), which has as yet been 

 captured only in the Mediterranean and of which but eight 

 examples have come under the notice of scientific writers. It has, 

 however, had the advantage of being figured in no less than four 

 different works, and in view of the fact that my species was 

 breeding or just about to breed the following remarks by Drs. 

 Goode and Bean are both interesting and instructive: — " The 

 great extension and elaboration of the nasal luminous plate shown 

 in the figure, may be due to sexual conditions. At all events, as 

 has been remarked, it is unlike that shown by Raffaele, though 

 sufficiently similar to that of Cocco and Bonaparte" {Oceanic 

 Ichthyology, ]). 87). Care should be taken in describing other 

 species of Pacific jEthojrrora, not to lay too great stress on a 

 somewhat more restricted development of the anteorbital 

 photophore, where other characters agree with those given above. 



The two other species belong to the fauna of the North Atlantic; 

 one of them, J^. efulgens, is known from two specimens, the first 

 of which was taken from the stomach of a cod, while the second 

 was dredged by the " Albatross" in 1639 fathoms, the remaining 

 species, ^. lucida, being taken at the same time. 



From all three the Pacific fish may be distinguished by the 

 presence of an additional frontal photophore lying between the 

 upper end of the anteorbital and the antero-superior angle of the 

 eye, as well as by the conspicuous non-glandular interspace 

 between the front margin of the eye and the anteorbital 

 photophore, and by the increased number of lateral photophores. 



Although this is the first species of jElhoi^rora definitely 

 recorded from the Pacific and Indian Oceans the Scopehts 

 mentioned by Dr. Alcock (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) vi. 

 1890, p. 219) as having been "taken from the stomach of a 

 Trigla hemistlcta " in the Bay of Bengal, and possessing " a 

 conspicuous luminous organ immediately in front of the eye " may 

 have belonged to this genus. 



