492 SPAlUDiE. 



of Chr. hiigispims to those from Japan • the hitter correctly restores 

 Forskfil'a name to the Ked Sea fish (the following species), and gives 

 an excellent figure. 



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

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

 fishes iu the British Museum Collection, the Chinese and Japanese 

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

 in spirits (sp. I, in.) to Chr. berda ; another (sp. r.), deformed by 

 stuffing, and probably pui'chased in Holland, to Chr. lomjispinis ; 

 finally, two other stuffed specimens (n, o), presented by ]\Ir. Reeves, 

 and differing little from each other, which bettor retained their 

 natural form, were consider'^d by him as tj-pcs of two new species — 

 Chr. auripes and ccanthopoda (? xanthopus). 



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

 because he though' it identical with the fish described by Forskal 

 and RUppell, 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. lomjispinis, and for the latter a new 

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

 lection exhibited twelve dorsal spines, and examples with eleven 

 were unknown to him. 



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

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

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

 Sea fish with those from the East Indies. Althoiigh not ha\dng a 

 specimen from the Red Sea, the figure given by RUppell appears to be 

 quite correct, like aU contained in his admirable works on the fishes 

 of the Red Sea, and fidly 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 j'apan ; secondly, it has the second anal spine much shorter than 

 any of the East Indian or Japanese specimens ; thirdly, 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 woiUd not 

 have been overlooked by so accurate an observer as I)r. RUppell. 

 Fi;om these differences I am induced to believe that Sparus 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 with the 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 wliich 

 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 



