4 PERCID^E. 



11. Serranus lanceolatus. [567.] 



Holocentrus lanceolatus, Block, t. 242. f. 1. 



Serranus lanceolatus, Cuv. fy Vol. ii. p. 316; Giinth. Fish. i. p. 107; Day's Fishes of Malabar, tab. i. 

 f. 1 (probably not fig. 2) . 



It has been maintained that this fish is only the young state of some larger species ; 

 and it is undoubtedly true that, so far as we are aware, none of the banded specimens 

 of S. lanceolatus exceed a length of 6 or 7 inches. 



Mr. Blyth was the first to refer lanceolatus as a synonym to another species, namely 

 to S. coioides, Buch. Ham. ( = S. suillus, Cuv. & Val.)(Journ. As. Soc. Ben. xxix. p. 111). 

 Mr. Day, without referring to this paper, also represents lanceolatus as a young 

 Serranus, but takes it to be that of horridus, K. & v. H. We may remark at once 

 that, to judge from the figures given by Mr. Day, this appears rather improbable, and 

 he does not explain, or even notice, the difference in the length of the dorsal spines in 

 the two fishes. 



The British Museum has received from Captain Mitchell of Madras a specimen, 16 

 inches long, as the old state of lanceolatus, which agrees structurally, though not in 

 coloration, with S. suillus ; it is certainly not the same as Mr. Day's so-called adult 

 lanceolatus. 



The first question which presented itself to us was, whether we should be able to 

 recognize one of the original figures given by Russell on plates 127 and 128. They 

 represent two fishes which, to say the least, are very closely allied ; Russell himself 

 says that 128 may perhaps be merely a variety of 127. Buchanan Hamilton is of opinion 

 that his Bola coioides is identical with plate 128 ; and Cuvier and Valenciennes establish 

 for plate 127 the specific name of S. suillus, while plate 128 is called by them S. bontoo. 



On comparing the figures and descriptions quoted, we cannot come to any conclusion 

 as to whether they refer to one and the same or to two separate fishes. 



In the Zanzibar collection there are, besides specimens of the banded S. lanceolatus, 

 larger and smaller ones, from 9 to 20 inches in length, which agree very well with plates 

 127 and 128 of Russell. We might say that they agree better with the former, inas- 

 much as the pectoral and anal fins are spotted, whilst those fins are immaculate in the 

 latter ; therefore we have not hesitated to name these specimens S. suillus. 



The second question was whether suillus represents the more developed state of lan- 

 ceolatus; and we have come to the conclusion that it does not, — -first, because the 

 largest specimen of lanceolatus is scarcely inferior in size to the smallest of suillus; 

 secondly, the opercular spines of lanceolatus are much more distant than in suillus ; 

 and thirdly, the scales of lanceolatus are very slightly ctenoid, nearly smooth, whilst 

 those of suillus have the margin beset with very distinct spinous teeth. These points 

 of difference apply equally to the specimen sent by Capt. Mitchell from Madras as an 

 adult lanceolatus, and which at present we are inclined to regard as a variety of suillus. 



