204 RECORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 



DiPLOCREPis CARDiNALis, Ramsay, sj). 



(Plate xxxvi., fig. 1). 



Gohiesox cardinalis, Ramsay, Proc. Linn. kSoc. N. S. Wales, vii., 

 1882, p. 148. 



D. 10; A. 7; P. 22; C. 11. 



Length of head 2-7 ; width 3"0 ; height of body 5-1 ; width 4-3 

 in the total length. The snout is obtusely pointed, short, its 

 length 4-0 in that of the head. The angle of the mouth is 

 beneath the anterior fourth of the eye and is almost concealed by 

 the overhanging px'eopercles. A patch of conical teeth in each 

 jaw, the outer series the larger. The opercle is represented by a 

 bony rod ending in a long spine, and the preopercle bears a smaller 

 spine, both being concealed beneath the skin. Both nostrils are 

 furnished with tentacles, of which the anterior is the larger. The 

 eye is 5-0 in the head and equal to half the inter-orbital breadth. 



The distance between the origin of the dorsal and the end of 

 the caudal is 1 "7 in that between the foi'mer point and the end 

 of the snout. Both dorsal and anal fins lie close to the caudal 

 but are not connected with it : the anal commences below the 

 middle of the dorsal and has a slightly more posterior termina- 

 tion. The length of the pectoral is 2-7 in that of the head and 

 the ventral is attaclied to its fourteenth ray. The posterior 

 sucking disc has a free anterior margin and is much broader than 

 long, its width being 1 -4 in the breadth of the head ; it extends 

 to beneath the end of the pectoral. The vent is nearer to the 

 disc tlian to the anal, the relative distance being as 3 to 5. The 

 caudal is subtruncate, its length a little more than half that of 

 the head. 



Colotirs. — The life colours are not known. In fluid, all ex- 

 amples are uniform yellow. 



Length 70 mm. 



Three specimens from near Launceston, Tasmania, collected in 

 1879, by Mr. K. Broadlient, and three from Ulverstone, Tasmania, 

 forwarded by the Curator of the Victoria Museum, Launceston, in 

 1 903. One of the formerbatch is very possibly the type of the species, 

 but the characters above given are derived from one of the more 

 recent acquisitions. The somewhat shrivelled condition of the 

 author's specimens, if such they be, may account for the differ- 

 ences noted. In the flrst place the structure of the posterior 

 sucking disc is not that of Gobiesox, and the number of dorsal and 

 anal rays is understated. Otherwise the specimens agree well 

 with the description and I have no hesitation whatever in 



