KiNGSLEY. — On Eegalecus argenteus, 33;i 



peculiar is Travers's description: "From the back of tlio 

 head rose several rigid circular spines about 18in. long, 

 fin. in diameter at the base, tapering to a point, curving 

 slightly backwards, hollow, and bristling along their whole 

 surface with small spines directed upwards. These long 

 spines appeared to be very brittle, as they broke off short 

 w^hen the fish struck the rock." He then goes on to say that 

 the person who saw the fish run ashore described " these 

 spines as appearing like three small masts to a boat, throurjli 

 the whole length of the fish, disijosed in pairs as follows : one 

 pair just below the back and the other p)airs ivimediatcl // 

 above." How he makes the first and last part agree, oi' 

 what he wished us to understand by the latter part, I cannot 

 comprehend. 



The peculiar ventral fins are represented in all known spe- 

 cies each by a single long ray terminating in a lobe, and in 

 some cases with a posterior fringe of membrane, whilst the 

 ray itself varies from 2ft. to 3ft. in length. 



Giinther and Yarrell state two species possess teeth, but all 

 the remaining species are quite edentulous. 



None of the species oi Begalecns possess scales except upon 

 the lateral line, but the skin in several species is studded with 

 bony tubercles, in others raised into a kind of soft warts, 

 all more or less arranged in three or four longitudinal 

 bands. 



In the fifteenth decade of the " Prodromus of the Zoology 

 of Victoria," Professor McCoy gives a coloured sketch and 

 also a description of a Begalecns caught between Australia 

 .and Tasmania. 



I may here state that the name Begalecns is derived from 

 rea; = king, and /la^ec = herring, in allusion to an old name given 

 to this fish by the fishermen on the coast of Britain, who first 

 saw it near that part of the ocean frequented by herring, and 

 hence called it the king of the herrings. 



I now proceed to the more direct subject of the paper. 

 The specimen under review was caught on the 23rd Sep- 

 tember last by Astle- — strangely enough, the same indivi- 

 dual who captured the specimen described by Mr. Travers in 

 1860. I heard of it on the 24th, and as soon as possible 

 I paid a visit to it. I found it, unfortunately, incomplete, 

 a large portion of the posterior part being missing. Astle 

 told me that he saw it swimming up the harbour, and, on 

 nearing it, struck it several times with an oar, and even- 

 tually secured it with a noose on a rope ; but in hauling it 

 aboard the boat it broke in two parts, and also knocked itself 

 about considerably in the bottom of the boat, damaging the 

 ventral and dorsal fins. I made sundry measurements and 

 took several notes in the hope that they might be interesting 



