46 i;kcui;i)S oi' thk austkai.ian muselm. 



by its autliDi', wliile its geuei'al appearance sugj^ests that it is au 

 Eugraulid ; this has been already noted by Cuvier and Valenciennes^ who 

 considered it possibly synonymous with E. bruioibi, and b}' Giinther- who 

 included it with doubt in tlie synoiiym}' of E. coiitiiiersonianu^. From 

 White's journal, it is almost certain that all tlie species described by Shaw 

 in the addendum to his work were taken between Botany Bay and Broken 

 Bay, New South Wales ; and as only one species of the family Engiaulida? 

 is known from this area, it is reasonable to assume that Shaw's figure 

 represents that common species. 



Giiuther's name antipodum was established to distinguish Tasmanian 

 and New Zealand specimens which were regarded as mere varieties 

 of E. encrasicolus, Liune, having a few more anal rays than European 

 representatives of the species. My Victorian specimens referred to above 

 exhibit this characteristic, and leave no doubt that they belong to the 

 same form as Avas discussed by Giinther. This supposed dirt'ereuce is not 

 constant, hoAvever, the number being subject to variation, and 1 Hnd no 

 specific diifei-euces betAveeu the Victorian specimens and the local 

 examples I have identified as E. (instraUs. 



Engraiclis aittarctlcas was a name given by Castelnau to a species 

 which was said to be very common in the Melboui-ne markets during the 

 Avhole year about 1872. I have examined many Victorian specimens 

 which differ from his desciiption principally in having 18-19 instead of 

 12 anal rays and 7 instead of 6 veutial rays, but as they were purchased 

 in the Melbourne mai'kets in 1880 and 1886, they indicate that Casteluau's 

 counting of the fin-rays was incorrect. Castelnau relied upon the 

 presence of mandibular teeth and a silvery lateral band to distinguish his 

 antarcticas from eiicrasiculn>!, in Avhich these charactei's were said to be 

 wanting by Giinther, but I find both the teeth aiul the band ai-e present 

 in specimens of the Eui-opeaii species, and quite similar to those of 

 Australian examples. 



E. heterolohuf, Riippell, is a tropical species, so that Kluuzinger's 

 records of it from Hobson's Bay are almost certainly incorrect. His 

 Victorian s])ecimens were perhaps identical with the form described 

 above, which is appai'ently the only Kngi-aulid occui'iing in the waters of 

 that State, ami references to his ))apei's aie accordingly included in the 

 above synonymy. 



Steindachnei's brief desci'iption of his E. aiDtlralls from Hobson's 

 Jiay Avas based u))on small examples in bad condition. Such characters 

 as Avere given agree with those of the specimens here described and 

 figured, and 1 therefoi-e regard Steindachnei-'s species as SA'nonymous 

 with Slunv's variety of the same iiaine. 



Oi-citrreiirt. — Though the Australian Anchovy is commonly isaid to be 

 abundant in our waters, the records of its occurience in large numbers 

 are not very niniuMous. McCoy (L'-i()7) first observed t lie species in great 



' Cuvier & Valeucienue.s, Hist. Nat. Poiss., tto. ed., x., 1836, p. 313, and xxi., 



IHIH, pp. :i2 .V: M."). 



-' (.uiuthor. Biil. .Mas. Cat. Fish., vii.. l!5(ks, p. [iHb. 



