264 Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 



6b. Inner margins of upper teeth either smooth, or with i to several 

 basal denticles (but not serrate) ; their bases not deeply incised 

 in the midline. 



7a. Precaudal pits well developed, both- above and below. 

 8a. Lower teeth erect, smooth-edged all along jaw. 



Negogaleus^ Whitley, 1931. 



India, Philippines, Australia, East 

 Indies, Indo-China. 



8b. Lower teeth along sides of jaw strongly oblique, their 

 outer margins notched and denticulate. 



Paragaleus Budker, 1935, p. 275. 

 7b. No precaudal pit above or below. 



Galeorhinus Blainville, 1 8 1 6. 



Eastern Atlantic, including Mediter- 

 ranean ; southern Scandinavia to tropi- 

 cal West Africa; South Africa; Uru- 

 guay and Argentina; west coast of 

 America (Chile, Peru, Lower Cali- 

 fornia, California); Central Pacific; 

 Japan, Formosa, East Indies, Aus- 

 tralia, Tasmania, New Zealand.* 



2b. Spiracles lacking. 



9a. Midpoint of base of ist dorsal considerably nearer to origin of pel vies than 

 to axil of pectoral. Prtonace Cantor, 1849, P- ^^O- 



9b. Midpoint of base of ist dorsal at least as near to axil of pectoral as to origin 

 of pelvics, or nearer. 

 lOa. Cusps of upper teeth smooth-edged, as well as those of lower. 



1 1 a. Second dorsal at least % as long at base as ist, its posterior margin 

 deeply concave. Negafrion Whitley, 1939, p. 308. 



3. Proposed by Whitley (Aust. Zool., 6, 1931 : 334) to replace Hemigaleus Bleeker, 1S52, the latter being preoccu- 

 pied by Jourdain, 1837, for mammals. 



4. Recorded nominally from Argentina and from Uruguay as Galeorhinus galeus (Berg, An. Mus. nac. B. Aires, 

 [2] /, 1895: 7; Devincenzi, An. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo, [2] /, 1920: 119), and as Galeus cams (Lahille, 

 Physis B. Aires, 5, 1921: 63; Enum. Peces Cartilag. Argent., 1921: 13; An. Mus. nac. B. Aires, S4> '9^8: 

 310; Marini, Physis B. Aires, 10, 1929: 452; Pozzi and Bordale, An. Soc. cient. argent., 120, 1935: 150). 



None of these citations include any description of the South American specimens. But the illustration of one 

 from Uruguay by Devincenzi and Barattini (An. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo, Suppl. Album Ictiol., 1926: pi. 1, 

 fig. 3) resembles the common Tope of Europe (G. galeus) so closely in general appearance, especially in the 

 very characteristic shape of the caudal, that the Uruguayan form must be regarded as identical with it, at least 

 until specimens can be compared critically. This appears to be true also of the Oil Shark of the eastern side of the 

 Pacific, described as Galeorhinus zyofterus Jordan and Gilbert, from California (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., 16, 1883: 

 871) ; also as Galeus chiUnsis Perez Canto (Estud. Escual., Chile, 1886: 3), and as G. ?no/<'»<»f Philippi (An. Univ. 

 Chile, 7/, 1887: 544, pi. 4, fig. 1) from Chile. 



That this species does not occur on the western side of the North Atlantic is one of the puzzling features in 

 the geographic distribution of sharks. 



