3. URONECTES. 325 



2. The length of the pectoral is one-half of that of the head. 



The young individual is marked with eleven broad cross-bands, 

 lighter on the middle and darker on the edges. In the older specimen 

 these cross-bands are broken up into irregularly reticulated lines, 

 passing from one band more or less into another. 



Length of the larger specimen 66 lines. 



Length of the young specimen 27 lines. 



The two following species probably do not belong to this genus. 



3. Gymnelis stigma. 

 Ophidium stigma, Richards, in Voy. Bloss. Fish. p. 67. pi. 20. fig. 1. 



Scales very small ; no traceof ventrals. Yellowish, with irregular 

 transverse series of brown spots. A roundish purjilish spot near the 

 origin of the dorsal. {Rich.) 



Kotzebue Sound. 



4. Gynmelis imberbis. 



Ophidium imberbe, L. Syst. ^at. i. p. 431 ; Lac6p. ii. p. 279; Montag. 



in Wern. Mem. i. p. 95. pi. 4. fig. 2 ; Turton, Brit. Faun. p. 88 ; 



Flem. Brit. An. p. 201 ; Jen. Man. p. 481 ; Yarr. Brit. Fish. 2n(i 



edit. ii. p. 412. 

 Beardless Ophidium, Penn. Brit. Zool. iii. App. p. 346, iv. pi. 93, and 



edit. 1812, iii. p. 208. pi. 29 (cop. Mmt.). 

 Cepolophis montagui, Kaup in Wteg7n. Arch. 1856, p. 97. 

 Gymneiis imberbis, Kaup, Apod. Fish. p. 156; Yarrell, 3rd edit. i. 



p. 79. 



D. 77. C. 18-20. A. 44. 



The dorsal fin commences immediately behind the root of the 

 pectoral. The distance of the vent from the root of the pectoral is 

 much more than the length of the head. Ten small bluish-white 

 spots along the base of the anal. 



South coast of England. 



3. UEONECTES. 



Body ensiform, compressed ; tail tapering. Vertical fins united ; 

 ventrals none. Vent not very distant from the head. Numerous 

 minute teeth in the jaws and on the palate ; the lower jaw is the 

 longest. Barbel none. 



Coasts of Arctic America. 



Our knowledge of the fish on which I have foixnded this genus 

 is very limited, and it is not certain whether it really belongs to this 

 family ; but the attention of ichthyologists is more likely to be 

 drawn to it while standing as a separate generic group, than if it had 

 been referred as a doubtful species to one of the other genera. 



