132 NOTES ON THE KEFRODUCTION OF TELEOSTEAN FISHES 



small and often weakly offspring, it is quite possible that the occur- 

 rence of the character rather in small eggs than large may be 

 explained in this way. On such a supposition one must class the 

 smaller ova with reticulo-papillate larvie merely as the offspring of 

 small individuals, of one or more species, and not as a distinct 

 species. I put forward the suggestion for what it may be worth. A 

 papillate condition of the skin is certainly a pathological condition 

 in the larva3 of many species, but is certainly present in some cases 

 in individuals which appear to be quite healthy. 



There is, I imagine, no means of deciding how many Topknots 

 have contributed to the ova taken in our tow-nets this spring, 

 although the apparent lateness of the spawning period and certain 

 characters of my solitary larva of P. unimaculatus seem to indicate 

 that the share of that species is, at any rate, unimportant. Failing 

 any observation of larvte derived from the artificially fertilised eggs of 

 Bh. punctatus and Ilh. noroegicus, it is impossible to say whether 

 one or both of these species are represented. 



Some help may perhaps be derived from a consideration of the 

 few metamorphosing larvte of Topknots which were obtained during 

 the year. 



I have described from Ireland, as Sp. xiv., a very conspicuously 

 characterised pleuronectid larva, which can now be referred, without 

 any doubt, to a Topknot. It is most readily recognised by the pre- 

 sence of a pair of relatively enormous spines on each otocyst, and is 

 further characterised by a very distinctly banded black pigmentation. 

 In discussing the affinities of this larva, I at first considered that it 

 must belong either to the Brill {lih. Ice vis) or to INi. norvecjicus. 

 Confirmation of Eaffaele's earlier observation of the young stages of 

 the Brill has shown that it is certainly not the parent of the larva 

 with periotic spines. On the other hand, Cunningham seems to me 

 to have proved, by the examination of older stages, that Eh. punctatus 

 has a spined larva similar to my Sp. xiv. A specimen examined by 

 this author has D. 90, A. 69, and he rightly contends that, of the 

 possible parents, Ilh, 2'>unctatus is by far the most probable. J\ly 

 largest specimen had D. 80 ca., A. 66 ca. It was not possible to 

 count all the rays. Cunningham makes the reservation that there 

 may be more than one species with a spined larval condition. 



A larva with periotic spines was formerly considered by MTntosh to 

 be possibly a young Ilh. punctatus, representing an older stage of another 

 larval form apparently similar to that which I doubtfully assigned, under 

 Sp. xiii., to F. unimaculatus. His latest discussion of tlie matter 

 (M'Intosh and Masterman) refers the last-named larva, which has no 

 periotic spines, to lih. punctatus, while the former, including my Sp. xiv., 



