38 Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 



usual in eel pots set overnight on suitable bottom, with 1,400 recorded as captured in one 

 set of 24 hours.^° 



Relation to Other Sfecies. The American form has been considered specifically dis- 

 tinct from the European by some authors {M. limosa Girard, 1859), but not by others. 

 However, the American form falls well within the limits of the European M. glutinosa 

 in numbers of lingual teeth and slime pores. Its rostrum is also of the same obtuse shape 

 in the better preserved specimens we have examined, although it has been pictured as more 

 acutely pointed in some.^' Nor has our own comparison of specimens from the two sides 

 of the Atlantic revealed any significant differences in other respects. While the American 

 form may grow larger than the European (p. 35), we hesitate to use size as a basis for 

 specific separation unless accompanied by other differences of a sort that could allow any 

 given individual to be referred to the one species rather than to the other. M. atlantica 

 Regan, taken off Nova Scotia, seems also clearly referable to glutinosa. 



The relationship of glutinosa of the northern hemsiphere to australis, affinis and 

 capensis of the southern hemisphere is not so clear, but is a question of interest from the 

 standpoint of geographical distribution. The only clear-cut difference between capensis on 

 the one hand and the australis-ajfinis group on the other (the former overlaps the latter in 

 number of teeth and slime pores) is that capensis is described as having seven gill pouches 

 while there are only six in australis and affinis. However, we doubt whether or not this 

 apparent difference is of specific importance, for while in glutinosa the usual number is 

 six, seven also have been recorded (p. 35). 



According to Norman's'* recent comparison of australis with affinis, the number of 

 teeth is less and the average number of abdominal slime pores is smaller in the former 

 (8 teeth in first series, 8 or 9 in second; s^ to 64 abdominal pores) than in the latter [ 10 or 

 II (9 in young) teeth in first series, 9-1 1 in second; 63 to 69 abdominal pores] ; and its 

 rostrum or labrum is longer and more acutely pointed. But this last character, being some- 

 what variable in glutinosa, may be equally so in the southern hemisphere forms. How- 

 ever, although the number of pores overlap in the two species, it appears that individual 

 specimens can be referred to the one or the other, depending on the number of teeth. The 

 large number of teeth in its anterior series also appears to mark affinis apart from glutinosa 

 (7-9), although it overlaps the latter in the number of teeth in the posterior series, and 

 falls within the range of variation recorded for glutinosa in the number of abdominal 

 pores; however, australis, by Norman's definition, falls within the limits recorded for 

 glutinosa, both in numbers of teeth and in numbers of pores. Neither have we been able to 

 separate individual specimens of the one from those of the other by shape of rostrum. But 

 since none of the considerable series of australis that we have examined are in good condi- 

 tion, we hesitate to unite the two species, in view of their widely separated areas of dis- 

 tribution. 



26. Lyngnes, Z. Wiss. Biol., Abt. A, Z. Morph. Okol., /p, 1930: 591. 



27. Garman, Mem. Harv. Mus. comp. Zool., 2^, 1899: pi. 68, fig. 7. 



28. "Discovery" Rep., 16, 1937: 4i see this publication also for the somewhat confused synonymy of the two. 



