1. LOPHirs. 181 



each side of the vomer ; humeral spine long, lanceolate, simple ; llie 

 mouth behind the hyoid bone colourless. 



Mediterranean . 

 o. Half-gTown. Mediterranean. Purchased of Mr. Frank. 



Spinola, Risso, Cuvier, and Bonaparte have endeavoured to distin- 

 guish a second Mediterranean species of Zop/ia<s, which they have cha- 

 racterized either by its colour, or the number of its dorsal rays, or the 

 different length or shape of the first dorsal spine, — characters which 

 have been considered by Valenciennes as so variable, that he did not 

 adopt the species founded on them. The most important of those 

 characters is that used by Cuvier, namely the number of the dorsal 

 rays. In all the immature specimens of L. piscatorius and of L. bu- 

 degassa wliicli I have examined, the number of the dorsal rays of 

 the former was not less than eleven, and of the latter not more than 

 nine ; but this character becomes uncertain in large individuals, in 

 which one or two of the fii'st rays appear to be lost with age. A 

 bettor character for the distinction of the two Mediterranean species, 

 and one which can be depended upon, is the form of the humeral 

 spine : the teeth with which it is provided, in L. pismtorius, never 

 being effaced, although thej' are more obtuse in old specimens than 

 in young ones. 



The three preceding species can be characterized sufficiently to 

 admit them into the system. The following were established for 

 single incU\aduals, which, coming from distant localities, showed 

 some slight differences from the European species : — 



1. Lophius cnnericanus, Cuv. & Val. xii. p. 380 ; Dekay, New York 

 Fauna, Fishes, p. 162. pi. 28. fig. 87 (bad). 



Lophius piscatorius, Mitch. Lit. & Phil. Trans. New York, i. 



p. 465 ; Eichards. Faun. Bor. Amer. Fishes, p. 103 ; Storer, 



Mass. Report, pp. 71, 404. 

 No difi'erences of any importance have been pointed out, and this 

 species is probably identical with L. piscatorius. Valenciennes states 

 eight or nine as the number of the dorsal rays ; but the sijecimen 

 examined is stuffed, and in bad condition. Dekay, who professes to 

 have seen several specimens, is unable to point ovit the specific cha- 

 racters ; the numbers given by him (D. 3 | 3 | 12. A. 10) would 

 lead to the opinion that it is most nearly allied to L. piscatorius. 



2. Lophius vomeriims,C\\\. ife Val. xii. p. 381, from the Cape, is 

 established upon a single specimen which had no teeth on the corners 

 of the vomer ; these may have been lost, the specimen being more 

 than two feet long. D. 3 | 3 | 10. A. 9. In other respects the 

 description agrees very well with the Cape specimen in the British 

 Museum. 



3. Lophius upsicephahis. Smith, lU. Zool. South Africa, Pisces, 

 pi. 9. The fig\u-e is wretched, and taken from a specimen deformed 

 by stuffing. It has vomerine teeth, and we therefore refer to this 

 species a stuffed specimen from the Cape, forty-one inches long. I am 

 unable to ascertain the number of the dorsal rays and the form of 



