216 MORMYEID^. 



Mormyrus oxyrhynchus,. Geoffr. Descr. Eg. Poiss. i. p. 270, pi. 6. fi<r. 1 ; 



Jonnnis, Gu^r. Mag. ZooL pi. 13 (bad) ; Cuv. <^ J'al. xix. p. 24^. 

 bachiqua, Cuv. <^ Val. xix. p. 248. 



D. 58-66. A. 18-20. V. 6. L. lat. ca 130. Vert. ^. 



20 



Snout conical, much produced, slightly bent downwards, the pupil 

 of the eye being scarcely nearer to the end of opercle than to the 

 extremity of the snout. Lower lip somewhat projecting beyond the 

 upper. Teeth not very small, sHghtly dilated, the crown with a 

 shallow notch. The height of the body is nearly equal to the length 

 of the head, which is two-ninths or a little more than two-ninths of 

 the total (without caudal). 



Nile. 



a, b-d, e, f. Adult and half-grown. Lower Nile. • 



g. Adult : stuffed. Egypt. Purchased of Dr. Heckel. 



h-n. Half-grown and young. Chartoum. From Consul Petherick's 



Collection. 

 0. Adult male: skeleton. Lower Nile. From Consul Petherick's 



Collection. 

 p. Adult: skeleton. Lower NUe. From Dr. Riippell's Collection. 



4. Monn3nnis longirostris. 



Mormyrus longirostris, Peters, Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. Berl 1852, 

 p. 275. 



D. 74. A. 18. 



Head very long, with the snout slender and decurved ; upper jaw 

 prominent. {Pet.) 

 Mossambique. 



5. Mormyrus geofiroyi. 



? Pococke, Reise, i. p. 316, taf. 70 ; Engl. edit. p. 202 (according to 



Schneider). 

 ? Centriscus niloticus, Bl. Schn. p. 113,.tab. 30. fig. 1. 

 ? Mormyrus geoffroyi, Cuv. ^- Val. xix. p. 240. 



D. 74-77. A. 17-19. V. 6. 



Scales very small. Snout conical, much produced, with its longi- 

 tudinal axis nearly in the same line as the axis of the body ; eye 

 almost in the middle of the length of the head. Lower lip somewhat 

 projecting beyond the upper. Teeth very small, slightly dilated, the 

 crown with a shallow notch. The height of the body is nearly equal 

 to the length of the head, which is two-ninths of the total (without 

 caudal). 



Nile. 



a, b. Half-grown. Lower NUe. 



It may appear doubtful whether these specimens are correctly 

 referred to M. geoffroyi, as Valenciennes states eighty-four dorsal 

 rays ; however, as they agree in all other respects with Valen- 

 ciennes'? description of that species, I would not separate them under 

 a distinct name. 



