54-4 NOTACAM'III. 



Fam. 47. NOTACANTHI. 



Notacantlii, pt., 3IiiI/er, Bed. Ahhandl. 1844, p. IGo. 



Body elongate, covered with very small scales ; snout proti'uding 

 beyond the mouth. Eyes lateral, of moderate size. Dentition feeble. 

 Dorsal fin short, composed of short free spines, a soft portion being 

 either entirely absent or quite rudimentary ; anal very long, an- 

 teriorly with many spines ; ventrals abdominal, composed of more 

 than five soft and of several unarticulated rays. 



Seas of the arctic and temperate regions of both hemispheres. 



The fishes of this family have the spinous portion of the dorsal 

 fin of the Acanthopterygians, and the structure and situation of the 

 ventral fins of the Malacopterj-gians. When their anatomy and the 

 structure of their gills and pharyngeal bones are better known, they 

 will, no doubt, form a distinct Order. Cuvier and Valenciennes 

 ranged them with the Scorabcroids I Miillcr formed a separate family 

 for them and for Mastacembehis. 



All these fishes have been hitherto referred to one genus ; but the 

 species which we shall mention as the last, is probably the type of a 

 second genus, for which the name proposed by Fabricius might be 

 used. 



1. NOT ACANTHUS. 



Notficanthus, Block, Ausl. Fischc, xii. p. 114. 

 Campylodon, Fabric. VuJemk. Sclsk. Sk>: Kjobaih. iv. p. 22. 



Characters the same as of the family. 

 Vrctic Seas. Mediterranean. Australian Seas. 



1 . Notacanthus nasus. 



Notacantbus nasus, Bl. xii. p. 114. taf. 431 ; Bl. Schn. p. 390; Cttv. ^• 

 Val. viii. p. 4(>7. pi. 241 ; Car. Bh/tw Anim. III. Poiss. pi. 55. fig. 2 ; 

 Gawuird, Voy. en Isl. cl aii Gronl. Zool. Poiss. pi. 1 1. 

 Cainpylndon, Fabric. Vidrnsl;. Srlsl: SI,r.KJobcnh.h.]\ 22. pi. 10. fig. 1. 

 Canipylodou fabvicii, Rrinli. T'idciisk. Schk. naturvid. o;i matlu-m. Af- 

 haa'dl. yii. 1838, p. 120. 

 B. 8. D. 9-10. A. 13-14 I no. C. 8. P. 17. V. 3/8. L. lat. 400. 

 The first dorsal spine is oppo.site to the ventral fin. 

 Greenland. 



The typical specimen of Bloch is in the Berlin IMuseum, that of 

 Fabricius in Copenhagen. The differences in the descriptions of 

 Fabricius and Valenciennes, as pointed out by Prof, llcinhardt, do 

 not appear to have originated in a specific difference of the two 

 specimens. 



