26. SEKRANXJS. 115 



32. Serranus argus. 



P Renard, fol. 2. no. 70 ; ValoU. iii. p. 459. no. 159. 

 Cephalopholis argus, Bl. Schn. p. 311. pi. Gl. 

 Serranus argus, Cur. iSf- Vul. ii. p. 300. 



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



Caudalis rounded ; praeoperculiim \ni\\ ex^ceedingly fine denticula- 

 tions, subopcrculum entire, a part of the lower edge of the intei'- 

 opercnlum tinely serrated ; three spines of the ojiercuhim veiy 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. 



This species may be easily confoimded with one of the other blue- 

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

 denticulations of the opercles. 



East Indies. 



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



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

 longitudinal bands. 



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 really at a loss how to subdivide the nu- 

 merous species still remaining. The best Avay would be to base the 

 division on anatomical differences, if such really exist ; but we must 

 leav> this task to those naturalists who are provided with more 

 abundant materials than we are. The dentition does not offer any 

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

 ration, as the species would then be very une(}ually divided, and 

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

 served and (Uscoloured specimens. Hence we can find no other 

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

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

 the detennining of species. The number of rays appeal's rarely to 

 vary more than two, and on endeavouring to determine a species 

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

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

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

 to sixteen. This method would be false if applied 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 coimtries is 

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

 is of no use at all whenever we have specimens '«nthout anv notice of 

 their origin. 



