26. SKRRANUS. 11^ 



32. Serranus argus. 



H Eenard, fol, 2. no. 70; Vulent. iii. p. 459. no. 159. 

 Ceplialopholis argus, Bl. Sc/in. p. 311. pi. (!l. 

 SeiTanus argus, (Vr. i-V Val. ii. p. 300. 



D. '-^. A. ^. L. lat. 95. 



Caudalis rounded ; priTeoporculum with exceedingly fine dentieula- 

 tion.s, suboperculura entire, a part of the lower edge of the inter- 

 operciilum finely serrated ; three spines of the operculum very con- 

 spicuous, the middle one longest ; maxillary bone reaching behind the 

 level of eye ; the diameter of the eye one-sixth of the length of the 

 head, and rather more than one-third of the total. Brown (in spirits), 

 with reddish-brown cross-bands ; head, body, and aU the fins with 

 numerous small, round, blue, dark-edged spots. 



Tliis species may be easily confounded wdth one of the other blue- 

 spotted Serrani, but is distinguished by the cross-bands and by the 

 denticulations of the opercles. 



East Indies. 

 a. Fine specimen. Sine patria. From the Haslar Collection. 



2. Body of uniform coloration or spotted; with neither transverse nor 

 longitudinal bauds. 



a. Dorsalis with nine, rarely with eight spines. 



By far the greater part of the species belonging to this group 

 exhibit the prajoperculum finely and equally denticulated, without 

 those strong teeth on the angle by which some of the former groups 

 are distinguished. The denticulations gradually disappear in some 

 species. Thus we are reaUy at a loss how to subdi\ide the nu- 

 merous species stiU remaining. The best way would be to base the 

 di^^[sion on anatomical differences, if such really exist ; but we must 

 leave this task to those natiu'alists wlio are pro'vided Tx-ith more 

 abundant materials than we are. The dentition does not off'er any 

 essential differences ; nor is it practicable to apply the different colo- 

 ration, as the species would then be verj^ unequally dinded, and 

 of but little use to the naturalist, who is obliged to examine pre- 

 served and discoloured specimens. Hence we can find no other 

 character but the niunber of the rays, much as we object to this 

 method ; but we obtain at least one advantage, that of facilitating 

 the determining of species. The number of rays appears rarely to 

 vary moi-c than two, and on endeavoui'ing to determine a species 

 we must look for it in two categories : for instance, if there is a spe- 

 cimen vnth fifteen soft rays, we must look for the species in the 

 category with fourteen to fifteen rays as well as in that ^vith fifteen 

 to sixteen. This method would be false if a2:)plied to other genera of 

 fishes with many-rayed fins, where the number often differs more 

 than five or six. A distribution according to the native countries is 

 of little value, so long as it is unaccompanied by other characters ; and 

 is of no use at all whenever we have specimens without any notice of 

 their origin. 



I 2 



