492 SPAEID^. 



of Chr. longispinis to those from Japan ; the latter correctly restores 

 Forskal's name to the Eed Sea fish (the following species), and gives 

 an excellent figure. 



Sir J. Eichardson, in his Report on the Ichthyology of the Seas 

 of China and Japan, has, in my opinion, entirely mistaken these 

 fishes in the British Museum Collection, the Chinese and Japanese 

 specimens of which only he has examined. He refers those preserved 

 in spu-its (sp. J, m.) to CJir. hercla ; another (sp. »■.), deformed by 

 stufling, and probably pm-chased in Holland, to Chr. longispinls ; 

 finally, two other stuffed specimens {n, o), presented by Mr. Reeves, 

 and differing little from each other, which better retained their 

 natui'al form, were considered by him as tj^jes of two new species — 

 Chr. aurijyes and xanthopoda (? xanthopus). 



Bleeker made no reference to Chr. berda, Valenc, probably 

 because he thought it identical with the fish described by Forskal 

 and Riippell, and endeavoured to show a specific difference between 

 the Bengal specimens and those from the Japanese Seas, — taking for 

 the former the name of Chr. hwjispinis, and for the latter a new 

 denomination, Chr. schlegelii. All the Bengal specimens of his Col- 

 lection exhibited twelve dorsal spines, and examples with eleven 

 were imknown to him. 



After having thus illustrated the synonymy of this and the fol- 

 lowing species, I shall make some remarks on the difterences found 

 in the specimens from different localities, and first compare the Red 

 Sea fish with those from the East Indies. Although not having a 

 specimen from the Red Sea, the fig-ure given by RUppeU appears to be 

 quite correct, like all contained in his admu-able works on the fishes 

 of the Red Sea, and fully sufficient for the purpose. From that 

 figure it may be seen that the Red Sea fish has a much higher body 

 even than those from Bengal, which are said to be higher than those 

 from Japan ; secondly, it has the second anal spine much shorter than 

 any of the East Indian or Japanese specimens ; thii-dly, there is a very 

 conspicuous opercular spine in all the specimens from the East Indies, 

 Japan, and China, but nothing of it is mentioned in the Red Sea fish 

 or marked in the figure, — a character which certainly would not 

 have been overlooked by so accurate an observer as Dr. RiippeU. 

 From these differences I am induced to believe that Sp<irus berda, 

 Forskal, forms a really separate species. 



In the East Indian specimens the following differences were 

 observed : — 



1. Bleeker states the Bengal fish to be higher than that from 

 Japan ; I found, in specimens of the same size, the height of the body, 

 absolutely, and compared mth tlie total length, exactly the same. 

 There are, moreover, Bengal specimens in the British Museum Col- 

 lection with a body not so deep as may be observed in examples 

 from China. There is some variation in this respect in all the 

 species of fishes, according to their sex-, or to the season in which 

 they are caught. At all events, the difference appears to be less than 

 between the Red Sea fish and the species from the East Indies. 



2. Bleeker states eleven dorsal spines for the Japanese fish, and 



