148 TRIGLID^. 



leng'th (without caudal) ; proeoperculum with five spines. Uniform 

 brownish above, or with a dorsal series of whitish spots. 

 Pacific. 



a. Tyi^e of the species. Sloane Museum ? 

 h. Presented by Mr. S. Stutchbury. 



25. MINOUS. 



Minous, Cm: Sf Val. iv. p. 420. 

 Corythobatus, sp., Cant. Catal. p. 45. 



Head and body rather compressed, without any scales. Several 

 bones of the head, and especially the prffiorbital, armed. One dorsal, 

 with nine to eleven spines, the anal with three ; one pectoral fila- 

 ment ; pectoral rather elongate. Yilliform teeth in the jaws and 

 on the vomer ; none on the j^alatines. Air-bladder present ; pyloric 

 appendages in small number. 



Indian Ocean and Archipelago. 



1. Minous monodactylus. 



Scorpfena monodactyla, Bl. Sclui. p. 194. 



Russell, pi. 159. 



Apistiis minous, Cur. Rcgne Anim. 



russellii, Swains. Nat. Hist. Fishes, ii. p. 2G5. 



Minous woora, Cier. 8f Val. iv. p. 421 ; Richards. Ichth. China, p. 213 ; 

 Bleeher, Sumatra, ii. p. 251. 



monodactj'lus, Cuv. Sf Val. iv. p. 424. pi. 59. f. 2 ; Week. Verh. 



Batav. Genootsch. xxii. Sclerop. p. 9. 



Corythobatus woora, Cant. Catal. p. 45. 



Minous adamsii, Richards. Voy. Samar. Fishes, p. 7. pi. 2. f. 4, 5 (pec- 

 toral rather too large). 



D.fg. A. 9-11. V. 1/5. 



The interocular space nearly equal to the width of the orbit ; the 

 prseorbital spine rather strong ; dorsal spines moderate. 

 Indian Ocean ; East Indian Seas. 



a, b. Adult. Madras. Presented by T. C. Jerdon, Esq. 



c. Adult. Borneo. Purchased of Mr. Frank. 



d. Adult. China. 



e. Adult. China. Presented by Captain Sir E. Belcher. — Type of 



Minous adamsii. 



f. Half-grown. China. Presented by Captain Sir E. Belcher. 

 g-o. Adult : dried. From Chinese insect-boxes. 



The differences in the number of the fin-rays, and the more or less 

 prominent spines on the bony bridge fi'om the infraorbital to the 

 prseoperculum, are not of specific value in this species, as is shown 

 by the specimens in the British Museum. It would, appear, however, 

 from Bleckcr's description, that there are other diff'erences between 

 M. woora and monodacti/lus. In this case it is very doubtful whether 

 the fish described by Cuvier under the name of tvoora, is identical 



m 



