28 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



afford us any information regarding this evidently rare form. 

 It is important to note, however, that he recognises three 

 species of Anarrhichas for the Atlantic, though he only 

 alludes to A. lupus by name. 



Dr. Day in his "British and Irish Fishes" (i 880-1 884, 

 i. pp. 195-197) evidently ignores this work of Professor 

 Steenstrup's. He was certainly cognisant of it, because he 

 refers to it in his synonomy of A. lupus, but not otherwise. 

 This is both surprising and disappointing, because, even if 

 our author was not prepared to accept the conclusions 

 arrived at by Professor Steenstrup, he at least ought to have 

 described the forms or varieties of A. lupus covered by his 

 bibliographical references. But though he includes among 

 the synonyms of our common Wolf- fish such suggestive 

 appellations as A. pantherinus and A. maculatus, yet he 

 tells us absolutely nothing about the form to which these 

 names actually refer. 



Regarding the identity of the interesting Scottish speci- 

 men under consideration, it is to be noted that in all the 

 essential particulars furnished by Mr. Young's description the 

 fish agrees in quite a marked manner with A. minor. Thus 

 the large dark spots, the absence of transverse bars, and the 

 comparatively smaller teeth, all point unmistakably to that 

 species. But to these characters, which chiefly relate to 

 the external appearance of the specimen, I am able to add 

 others. Mr. Young has kindly sent me an excellent impress, 

 in gutta-percha, of the palatal series of teeth — which, along 

 with the cranial characters, furnish the most important 

 evidence of identity. This impress decides, it is thought, 

 the specific identification of the fish, since it clearly 

 shows the palatine and vomerine series of teeth to be as 

 nearly as possible of equal length, agreeing with Professor 

 Steenstrup's description and figure of the dentition of A. 

 minor. I may also add that I counted the impress of ten and 

 eleven teeth in the respective palatine series. Mr. Young's 

 remarks on the more massive appearance of the head, 

 as compared with that of the Common Wolf-fish, are also of 

 importance. Here, again, we have a characteristic feature of 

 A. minor, in which the cranium is broader than in A. lupus 

 by reason of the frontal bones being more expanded. I 



