31 



This species was first recognised as distinct in Britain by Parnell, who described it in 

 the "Magazine of Zoology and Botany," Vol. I, 1837, under the name Monochirus 

 ininutus. He believed that it had never been described before, and therefore gave it 

 the name minutus, placing it in Cuvier's sub-genus IJonochirus. He gives a figure of 

 it, and mentions as its specific character that every sixth or seventh ray of the dorsal 

 and ventral fin is black ; he obtamed his specimens at Brixham from the trawlers. 

 W. Thompson in the " Annals of Natural History," Vol. II, 1839, identified Parnell's 

 species minutus with that mentioned by Cuvier in the " Kegne Animal," under the name 

 Linguatida, which is the Solea parva sive lingula of Eoudelet. Cuvier defines the 

 Monochires as those specimens of Solea in which the pectorals are minute, the left 

 being either very minute or altogether wanting. 



I have consulted a French translation of Eondelet's original Latin woik ; this trans- 

 lation is dated "Lion " (Lj'ons), 1558. The names here given are La petite Sole, and 

 Solea lingula, and though no characteristic specific features are mentioned in the 

 description, the figure given agrees very well in shape with specimens of the present 

 species ; this figure shows the left side of the fish. 



Yarrell introduced a figure and description of Parnell's Monochirus vnnntas into his 

 supplement to the first edition of his " British Fishes," not having been acquainted with 

 the species when he published the book. 



Parnell's species was described as distinct by Dr. Giinther in the British Museum 

 Catalogue, under the name Solea minuta from two specimens, one, a dried skin, from 

 Yarrell's collection, the other, stufied and dried, from Brixham. 



Moreau, in his " Poissons de la France," 1881, in describing Microchirus luteus, the 

 Solea lutea of Bonaparte, suggests by means of a note of interrogation that Solea minuta 

 is a synonym of that species, and Francis Day, in his " Fishes of Great Britain and 

 Ireland," states without reservation that the two species are identical. 



Dr. Giinther in his Catalogue describes one specimen of Bonaparte's Solea lutea. He 

 has informed me that he i^ow considers the two species to be identical, and after 

 examination of English specimens and Mediterranean specimens of lutea at the British 

 Museum, and comparing them with the various descriptions, I have no doubt myself 

 that lutea and jninuta are the same species. 



This species was first described by Kisso, in his "Ichthyologie de Nice," under the name 

 Pleuronectes luteus, and his description is sufficiently accurate for its identification, 

 The same author, in his " Histoire Naturel de I'Europe Meridionale," placed the species in 

 the o-enus RJioinbus, calling it Rhombus luteus. Bonapartti, in his " Fauna Italica," gives 

 an excellent description, and two very good coloured figures. He describes the colour 

 of the body, apart from the fins, as a uniform golden yellow without spots, but in 

 Mediterranean specimens in the British Museum 1 found the markings which I have 

 described above in English specimens. 



