ox RAY. 141 



to have been derived from badly-preserved, and even mutilated 

 subjects. It appears highly probable, however, that more than 

 one species has visited us; and, in collecting together what 

 has been recorded concerning them, I would be considered 

 as furnishing the reader with a summary of what is known, 

 for future use, rather than as satisfying inquiry or advancing 

 a decided opinion. I have not myself been able to examine 

 and sketch more than a single example, and that a preserved 

 skin, of these fishes, and this I believe to have been obtained 

 from the Mediterranean; but, although with some difference, 

 it bore so close a likeness to the example described and 

 represented by Professor M' Coy, in the "Annals and Maga- 

 zine of Natural History," already referred to, that I feel no 

 hesitation in believing them to represent each other. Professor 

 M' Coy's description is therefore here brought forward at 

 considerable length, and his figure is chiefly depended on, 

 although another is also produced, from the example already 

 mentioned as sketched from nature by myself. 



"The specimen in question was first publicly noticed by 

 Mr. Thompson, in a communication to the Zoological Society 

 of London, and the particulars which he gives of its capture 

 on the Irish coast are all I know on that point. That 

 gentleman, however, neither described nor figured the specimen, 

 merely noticing its general resemblance to the figure given 

 by Risso of the Cephaloptera Giorna; subsequent writers seem 

 to have in some measure mistaken this passage, as they make 

 the reference to that species decisive, v/hich, as I have stated, 

 was not the case in the original notice. I might here suggest, 

 that, according to the rule of priority, Dumeril's name 

 (Cephaloptera) should not be retained for this genus, having 

 been previously used by Geoffrey St. Hilaire for a genus of 

 Coracince, formed for the reception of that remarkable bird 

 the Coracina cephaloptera of Vieillot. It has- been proposed 

 to alter the name of the genus of fish to Pterocephala, which 

 it would be well to adept. 



"On examining this very interesting specimen, I found that 

 although obviously a Pterocephala, it yet presented most im- 

 portant differences from the C. Giorna^ both in outline, pro- 

 portions, shape of the fins, and form of the wing-like appendages 

 to the head; neither does it agree with any of the European 



