24 



I will now sliortly consider the question of tlie identification of the actual specimens 

 cataloo-ued by Giintlier. In the single specimen he calls lascaris I could count only 

 133 rows of scales, a number not much larger than the maximum 125 found by 

 me in the English form. As for its narrowness, it had been forced into a bottle much 

 too narrow for it, and had in consequence been much compressed in breadth, so that 

 I think it is scarcely possible to be certain about its proportions. I do not consider 

 it to be specifically distinct from the Solea lascaris of Bonaparte. 



Solea irnpar, Bennett, and Solea maryaritifera, Gunther, must for the present be 

 considered distinct. They differ from English specimens of Solea lascaris in numerical 

 characters and also in colour. Both of them possess the marking characteristic of 

 vulgaris, that is to say, there are dark spots arranged as in vulgaris, not divided up 

 into small specks as in lascaris. Margaritifera is further distinguished by the con- 

 spicuousness of the small white spots in the type specimen in spirit. It may be found 

 in the future that English specimens of S. lascaris exhibit a range of variation which 

 would include both these species. 



Moreau, in his "Poissons de la France," 1881, also identifies the Solea auranliaca of 

 Gunther with the Solea lascaris of Eisso and Bonaparte, but he further includes the Solea. 

 impar, Bennett, in the same species, although it is not clear from his description 

 whether he actually discovered by his own observation that the range of variation of 

 lascaris included the characters of impar. Francis Day, in his "Fishes of Great Britain 

 and Ireland," 1880-84, gives ihe same synonymy as Moreau. 



