Forbes. — 0)i Eecalecus. 193 



"Ci' 



was thrown on the shore near Moeraki about the year 1881, 

 and near the same place ; the seventh also {Rcgalccus argeii- 

 teiis, Parker) on the 14th June, 1883, whose skeleton is now 

 in the British Museum, South Kensington ; the eighth — 

 a specimen of the same species — came ashore in Otago 

 Harbour about ten miles north of Dunedin on the 3rd June, 

 1887 ; while the ninth was taken in Nelson Harbour on the 

 23rd September, 1890, and is now in the Otago Museum. Of 

 the fewer than twenty specimens captured in England, eleven 

 are referable, the same author observes, to a smgle species, 

 Begalecus banksii, while one is assigned to Begalecus grillii. 

 The specimen captured in May, 1878, between Victoria and 

 Tasmania has been identified by Sir Fred. McCoy as Begalecus 

 banksii. Taking as our guide, however, the key to the species 

 of Begalecus given by Professor Parker in vol. xvi. of the Trans- 

 actions of the New Zealand Institute, it ought, it would ap- 

 pear, to bear the name of B. grillii, on account of the number 

 of its dorsal-fin rays. This specimen has been described and 

 figured by Sir Frederick in the 15th decade of the Prodromus 

 of the Zoology of Victoria. After a careful comparison of the 

 descriptions and figures of the species of Begalecus known to 

 me, I have come to the conclusion that the species that has 

 been exhibited during the past week in Christchurch is iden- 

 tical with that taken off the Australian coast — namely, the 

 species described by Lindroth under the name of Begalecus 

 grillii. In an addendum to his paper in volume xx. of the 

 Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, Professor Parker, 

 who, while writing his excellent monograph on B. argenteus, 

 gave the literature of the subject his careful attention, writes, 

 " Everything seems to lead to the conclusion that most of the 

 supposed species of Begalecus are identical, and that the 

 more recent specific names (including argenteus) will have to 

 give way, probably in favour of Ascanius's original name 

 'glesne.'" The synonymy of the species is rather involved, 

 and the works necessary to its elucidation are not within my 

 attainment here. Professor Parker's opinion, however, is 

 entitled to very great weight, and the observations on the 

 present specimen tend to support it. This new specimen, 

 therefore, ought strictly to be denominated B. glesne ; but 

 for the present I shall speak of it under the name B. grillii, 

 to indicate that in my opinion it belongs to the same species 

 as Lindroth described. 



This fish had been exhibited in Lyttelton, I believe, before 

 being brought to Christchurch, and had, unfortunately, in its 

 various transports, and perhaps also in its capture — for it was 

 still alive when caught — suffered to some extent. It had lost 

 much of its brilliant colouring, and most of the singular rays 

 of its crest, as well as received damage to the long rays of the 

 13 



