THE FISHES OF THE *INGOLF» EXPEDITIONS. II 



looking much like the said species, but diff erring by the eyes not being particularly small and by 

 totally wanting the light-glands or f photospheres >. It can therefore apparently hardly be referred to the 

 same genus. The dorsal and anal fins are very like those of C. microdo)i^ though with the difference 

 that the dorsal fin begins somewhat before the anal fin, while this on the other hand ends somewhat 

 farther back than the dorsal fin. Quite black. — A somewhat larger specimen (105""^) from Station 9 

 — 64^ 18' Lat. North and 27' Long. W. , 295 fathoms — is so badly preserved, that it gives only the 

 information that the eyes are not small and that both jaws are armed with small teeth directed 

 obliqueh- backwards, with a few longer ones in the foremost part of the lower jaw and the foremost 

 part of the palate or the intermaxillary. The nearer determination of this specimen must be reser\'ed 

 for a future discovery. 



It seems evident that these specimens belong to species else unknown, but as the material is 

 so scanty I shall limit myself to the short preliminary notes made above. 



The Notacanths. 



For a long time, only few specimens of the remarcable group, the Notacanthini ^ were known 

 of the type termed Cauipylodon (tBugtetauden ) by Otto Fabricius (Skrifter af Naturhistorie 

 Selskabet, Vol. IV, fasc. II (1798), p. 22 — 38, pi. 9, fig. i), but inserted in the system as Notacatithus 

 Chenmitzii Bl. (Abhaudlungen der bohmischen Gesellschaft, 1787) or as NotacantJnis nasus Bl. (Aus- 

 landische Fische, IX, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Fische, XII, p. 113 (1793), pL 431); Schneider, 

 «Systema ichthyologise > (1801), pi. ']■]. The older Reinhardt designated it in his «Ichthyologiske 

 Bidrag> (Viden.sk. Selsk. Skr. VII) p. 120 as Cainpylodoii Fabricii, but now-a-days it is generally better 

 known as N'otacantlins iiasns. These few specimens are i) The original Greenland .specimen of 

 Fabricius, which, it must be deplored, in the course of time has been lost — I can not say at what 

 time. 2) The specimen received by Bloch from Chemnitz, probabl}- from Iceland, though it was 

 stated to come < from India . It is described and figured in Cuvier's and Valenciennes's «Histoire 

 naturelle des poissons: VIII, p. 467, pi. 241. It is still preserved, as has been stated subsequently, in 

 the Berlin-Museum in a rather deteriorated condition. 3) A third large specimen was received at our 

 museum in 1871 from Greenland; it is mentioned and partly described by me in 1878 in the «Viden- 

 skabelige Meddelelser fra den naturhistoriske Forening . 4) The specimen obtained from Iceland for 

 the ]Museum of Paris on the voyage of la Recherche* or rather as a consequence of this voyage 

 (Gaimard: Voyage en Islande et an Groulaud, Poisson.s, pi. XI); Vaillant mentions this specimen 

 (Expeditions scientifiques p. 316) as being from < Greenland •, but that is not correct. It is figured twice 

 in the edition illustree du - Regne animal > de Cuvier (Poissons pi. 55, fig. 2) and in the above quoted 

 itinerary by Gaimard. The question if these 4 arctic specimens should perhaps represent more 

 than a single species did not attract the attention for a long time to come. But now some Mediter- 

 ranean species were discovered: N'ot. Bonapartii Risso (Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte 1840, p. 376; 

 Mem. Acad. d. Sc. Torino, t. XVIII, p. 190) and A^. viediterranczts Fil. & Verany (Mem. Acad. d. Sc. 



