53 



the dorsal, when it takes a straight course through the mid- 

 dle of the tail. 



Tlie dorsal spines have their broad sides turned alter- 

 nately to the right and left ; the first two spines are short, 

 and the third and fourth are the longest, the succeeding ones 

 decreasing rapidly in height. The spine of the second dor- 

 sal is buried in its front, so that only its tip shows. The 

 first and second anal spines arc longer than the following 

 two. The soft dorsal and anal are alike, both having 

 a rounded lobe in front higher than the rest of the fin, and 

 the posterior corner also rounded. The caudal is slightly 

 crescentic. This fin and the soft dorsal and anal are 

 rough with minute scales. 



The specimen here described is a dried one, and the co- 

 lours have consequently perished, but the scales retain a 

 peculiar satiny lustre, and sixteen or eighteen narrow black 

 bands remain visible on the back, descending a little below 

 the lateral line, together with many roundish spots lower on 

 the sides. The top of the head and nape are dark, and 

 there is a broad black stripe behind each dorsal spine, and 

 also, but more faint, behind each anal spine. The soft 

 dorsal and anal are also very finely edged with black, but 

 the rest of the fins appear to be colourless. 



This species differs in profile from the Chfstodon ietra- 

 cantlms of Lacepede (iii. pi. XXV., fig. 2, et iv. p. 727), or 

 Scatophagus fasciatus, C. et V. vii. p. 144. The vertical 

 bands are of a different description, and th-jre is no trace 

 of the pectorals having been black. 



Length of the specimen \Q\ inches. 



Hai3. King George's Sound, Australia. 



LuTODEiRA SALMONEA. J. R. Forster, {Mugll). 



Mugil salmoneus, J. R. Forster, apud Bl. Schneid. p. 121. Leuciscus 

 (Ptycholepis) salinoneus, Richardson, Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. xi. p. 

 489, July, 1843. Mugil salmoneus, Forst. Descr. An. cura Lichtenst. 

 p. 299. An. 1844- Icon. Georg. Forster, in Bib. Banks. No. 237. Mu- 

 gil lavaretoides, Solander, Pise. Austr. p. 15 ? Names given to it by 

 the native tribes near Port Essington, Mirle-mirle, and Orgurkhud. 

 Genus, Lutodeira, Van Hasselt, Riippell. 



Radii:— B. 4; D. 15; A. 11 ; C. 19f ; P. 17 ; V. 11. 



Plate XXXVI., fig. 1, natural size ; 2, magnified. 



The synomyms above quoted, show that much difference 

 of opinion has been entertained respecting the proper place 

 of this fish in the system. Cuvier, and subsequently 

 M. Valenciennes, considered it to be the same with the 

 Elops machnata. This mistake is well exposed by Dr. 

 Riippell in his Atlas, p. 18, and Neue Wirlbethiere, p. 80, 

 but he also is in error in supposing that the species is the 

 same with the Mugil chanos of Forskal. Van Hasselt in 

 the year 1822 noticed the Magil chanos in Ferussac's 

 ' Bulletin des Sciences,' (ii. p. 92), under the appellation of 

 Lutodeira, and Riippell in his Atlas gives the generic cha- 

 racters at length, with a full description and figure of the 

 species, identifying it with the palah-bontah of Russell, 

 207. The toolelo, No. 208, of the latter author is a second 

 species of Lutodeira, and Forster's fish is a third one. In 



the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History ' I gave a 

 full description of Forster's species from the dried skin of 

 an individual which was taken in the harbour of Port Es- 

 sington. Having overlooked Dr. RuppelFs able exposition 

 of the genus, I fell into the error of taking the fish for a 

 Cyprinoid, and named it Leuciscus (Ptgcholepis*) salmo- 

 neus. This mistake is strongly animadverted upon in a 

 note appended to page 300 of Forster's ' Descriptiones 

 Auimalium,' recently published by Lichtenstein, which I 

 refer to chiefly because Mr. Gray's name is there associated 

 with my own, but the error was wholly mine.t 



If great authorities can excuse a mistake of the kind, the 

 first of modern ichthyologists may be adduced in the fol- 

 lowing sentence, " le Alugil chanos de Forskal est de 

 la famille des Cyprins." (Cuv. Reg. An. ii. p. 23-3) : and in 

 recognising the connexion between Forster's fish and Rus- 

 sell's palah-bontah and toolelo, which he considers to be 

 Cyprini, I followed him without due consideration. I could 

 not ascertain the form of the pharyngeals from the dried 

 specimen, the back part of the skull having been cut away, 

 but the head exteriorly exhibits none of the characters 

 which have been indicated by M. Agassiz, as characteriz- 

 ing the skull of a Clupeoid. The parietal crests do not 

 show at all, and are not prolonged, nor is there a deep 

 notch in which the occipital crest stands. No crests run 

 from this notch to the middle of the orbit, there are no tem- 

 poral grooves, nor does the triangular depression of the 

 forehead, so conspicuous in most Clupeoids, appear. It is 

 possible that some indications of these generic peculiarities 

 might be traced in a properlj' prepared skull, but they do 

 not show through the dried integument. The composition 

 of the orifice of the mouth, however, is clupeoid. 



This Lutodeira has the general aspect and neat appear- 

 ance of a Coregouus. The length of the head, which some- 

 what exceeds the height of the body under the dorsal, is 

 contained five times and a half in the total length of the 

 fish, caudal included. The profile is a narrow ellipse, the 

 back and belly being bounded by equal curves, rising re- 

 gularly from the mouth to the front of the dorsal, which is 

 the middle of the length, caudal excluded. At the base of 

 the caudal the height is less than one-third of that before 

 the dorsal. The head is covered with a smooth nacry skin, 

 which is continued evenly over the cheeks and gill-covers, 

 so that the limits of the opercular pieces can scarcely be 

 distinguished even in the dried specimens, the under bor- 

 der of the preoperculum alone being marked out by a fold 

 of skin. The disk of this bone is acutely crescentic, with 

 an obtuse notch on its edge beneath the curve, and its un- 



* The name of Pti/cholepis could not in any case have stood, as it 

 had, togetliev with almost every Greek compound that can be devised to 

 signify sculpture of the scales, been appropriated by M. Agassiz to fossil 

 genera, though I was not aware of that fact when in search of a charac- 

 teristic generic name. 



:J; The passage is " Maxime autem Graij us et Richardsonius nobis viden- 

 tur vituperandi, qui eundem piscem Leuciscuui (Ptycholepin) salmoneum 

 nuncupant, priini inter omiies Cypnnmn in Oceana piscaturi." On this I 

 would further observe that the Cyprini are not absolutely confined to 

 fresh waters, some of the Caiastomi frequent the salt estuaries of the nor- 

 thern rivers of America, and in page 44 of this work I have described a 

 purely marine fish, the Rliynchana greyi, which, if it be not a Cyprinoid, 

 seems to be more nearly related to that family than to any other. 



