32 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



Scorpaena echinata, Koehler. 



1896, Ann. Univ. Lyon, xxvi, p. 478, pi. xxvii, figs. 4-6. 



Scorpaena cristulata, Holt and Byrne, 1908, Fisheries Ireland Sci. Invest., 1906, v, p. 20, 

 pi. ii. 



Depth of body af to 3^ in the length, length of head 2^ to 2^. Snout about as long 

 as eye, diameter of which is 4I to 4! in length of head and twice or nearly twice width 

 of interorbital space, which is very shallow. Top of head, cheeks and opercular region 

 with visible scales. No occipital pit. Two blunt praeorbital spines ; about 7 or 8 spines 

 on suborbital ridge, which is prominent. No supraorbital tentacle, but some small 

 filamentous processes scattered over the head. Length of band of palatine teeth about 

 f diameter of eye. 11 or 12 gill-rakers on lower part of anterior arch. Scales spinulose 

 and ciliated ; 6 or 7 series between last soft-ray of dorsal and lateral line ; a few fila- 

 mentous processes along lateral line; breast scaled. Dorsal XI-XII 9-10; fourth to 

 sixth spines longest, 3^ to 3^ in length of head; soft dorsal largely covered with scales. 

 Anal III 5; second spine longer and stronger than third. Pectoral with 21 or 22 rays, 

 extending about to above vent ; the lower rays much thickened ; base broad. Pelvics not 

 nearly reaching vent. Yellowish brown (reddish in life); uniform or with irregular 

 patches of black on body; a black area covering greater part of spinous dorsal, and 

 another on soft dorsal ; anal sometimes with a large black blotch ; pectoral with a large 

 dusky area in the centre. 



Hab. Deep water off the west and south-west of Ireland and in the Bay of Biscay. 



In the British Museum 6 specimens, 330-510 mm. in total length. 



It is possible that this species will prove to be identical with S. cristulata, Goode and 

 Bean, from off the coast of Georgia, U.S.A., as suggested by Koehler himself, but I 

 have hesitated to unite two species from different sides of the Atlantic without actual 

 comparison of specimens. I have not been able to examine examples of the American 

 species, and, judging from the published description and figure (which exhibit certain 

 discrepancies), cannot find any definite characters to separate this from S. echinata, 

 although it is possible that the scales will prove to be larger in the latter. Meanwhile, 

 I think it better to regard the two species as distinct. 



^. capensis, Gilchrist and von Bonde,^ which Barnard'^ doubtfully places in the genus 

 Sebastosemus, Gill, is clearly related to Scorpaena ecJmiata and S. cristulata, but has 

 thirteen dorsal spines. Further, the eye is larger, the interorbital space much narrower, 

 the head less heavily armed, the maxillary broader, and the pectoral fin shorter. In 

 spite of the difference in the number of dorsal spines, there can be little doubt that the 

 two northern Atlantic species and that from the Cape are congeneric, and it seems 

 probable that this character has considerably less value in the differentiation of genera 

 than has generally been supposed. 



1 1924, Rep. Fish. Mar. Biol. Surv. S. Afric, in (1922), Spec. Rep. No. VII, p. 18. 

 ^ 1927, Ami. S. Afr. Mus., xxi, p. 909. 



