Zoology.] NATURAL HISTORY OF VICTORIA. [.Fishes. 



between the Tasmanian and Victorian coasts, in May, 1878. The 

 tail is more nearly perfect than in any other described one, although, 

 unfortunately, slightly mutilated now in stuffing, but to so small 

 an extent that I give a figure of this part, natural size, to show the 

 defect exactly. The extreme brittleness of the fin rays, as in all 

 the family Trachypteridce, has only left 2 or 3 inches of the basal 

 portion of the shaft of each ventral fin, the dilated paddle-shaped 

 distal end being absent, and leaving the length of the rays of the 

 anterior dorsal crest uncertain. The great number of rays in the 

 dorsal, which I give, is accounted for by the greater perfection of 

 the tail end of the specimen in our Museum. Hancock's figured 

 specimen is generally accepted as perfect, and he counts 268 rays 

 in the dorsal behind the crest ; but as he states the fin rays to be 

 1 in. high at the end where, he says, thebody is 3 inches deep, I think 

 this is an indication that the body had lost formerly about 2 ft. of 

 the tail end, which had probably healed up in the very unnatural 

 form he depicts, and as also represented in Mr. Couch's figure of 

 the same specimen. Our specimen, a foot longer than his, tapers 

 to a perfectly regular end, only half an inch in depth, and with the 

 last rays of the fin only about -£ T of an inch high ; the 4 inches deep 

 of fin and body he gives would be found at about 2 ft. from the end, 

 and the missing portion would therefore have carried about 120 

 more rays than he gives, making a near approach to my number, 

 which is clear. Lindroth counts 406 rays in the dorsal of his 

 Gymnetrus Grillii. Although I think it quite likely that Dr. Gray 

 is correct in considering G. Glesne and G. Grilli as different, 

 imperfect, descriptions of imperfect specimens of the same species 

 named G. Banksi by Cuvier and Valenciennes, and figured and 

 described in detail by Hancock and Embletou, and that, therefore, 

 the proper name to use would be R. Glesne, I prefer to use 

 the name referring to Hancock's fish, concerning which there 

 can be the least doubt of any of the figures and descriptions given 

 before, particularly as Ascanius' figure of R. Glesne is propor- 

 tionately shorter, and represents the fin as going round the caudal 

 end of the body. 



The silvering of the surface comes off at every touch, like the 

 dust on a moth's wing. 



[ 170 ] 



