KiNGSLEY. — On Eegalecus argenteus. 337 



Dorsal rays — 



1st, broken part left 2iin. 



2nd, damaged ... ... ... ••• 19in. 



3rd, complete ... ... •■• ••• 21in. 



f^ I damaged 19m. 



rr.i - broken. 

 7th ) 



8th, complete 17in. 



9th, complete 16m. 



The remaining rays, 10th to 15th, inclusive, were broken 

 and very much dainaged. The remainder of the second dorsal 

 fin contained 175 rays ; and, as Professor Parker gives his 

 number as 190, Von Haast 223, and McCoy 406, we may 

 safely infer that the missing portion measured at least 3ft. 



The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rays were connected with a 

 membrane for iVm. of their length. This would appear to 

 coincide with Professor Parker's description of the first five 

 rays being distinct from the remainder, and forming thus two 

 portions, or "nuchal fins." I also noticed distinctly the spots 

 upon the membrane of the first nuchal fin; they were, as 

 stated by Professor Parker, very dark crimson. The 1st ray was 

 stronger than any of the others, and a greater space existed 

 between it and No. 2 than between any of the other rays. 

 The 8th and 9th still retained their lobes in good condition. 



The pectoral rays were, as stated, 12 in number, and 2^iu. 

 long, width at base liin., and nearly horizontal, as in Pro- 

 fessor Parker's specimen, but far larger than those shown in 

 McCoy's sketch. 



The ventral rays were both missing, broken off at 5in., 

 but I have since seen one of them. Its full length would be 

 30|-in., with a curve inwards at the extreme end, and with a 

 dehcate membrane along the posterior edge, and two triangular 

 lobes at 8^in. and 18|in. from the base. The terminal lobe 

 was oval, 2|in. x l|^in.; the whole in colour a deep bright red, 

 the terminal lobe approaching to a dark crimson. 



The branchiostegal rays and general features were so very 

 similar to those so well described by Professor Parker that 

 they need not be recapitulated. 



There is, however, one other point to be noted. The speci- 

 men I found to be a male, w^hereas Professor Parker states 

 (vol. XX., p. 21), " It is remarkable that all those previously 

 captured, whose sex was ascertained, have been females." 



It was surprising to me how few persons availed them- 

 selves of the opportunity of seeing it. A more strikingly 

 handsome fish is seldom cast on our shores, and one would 

 have supposed that its beauty, if not their curiosity, would 

 have attracted more persons to view it. 

 22 



