IN THE SOUTH-WESTERN DISTRICT. 151 



small pelagic eggs, and none, I believe, are known to have eggs 

 furnislied with attachment processes. It is true that liyder at one 

 time supposed that the ova of Mugil albula resembled those, of the 

 Atherines ;* but as no observations have been brought forward in proof 

 it may be supposed that this view was subsequently abandoned. M. 

 albula, a species of which Giinther could find no description (Cat. iii., 

 p. 410), has been subsequently identified by naturalists of the U.S. 

 Fish Commission with M. cep/ialus. 



It has recently been stated by Sir James Hector {Protection of 

 Mullet, Parliamentary paper, New Zealand, Sess. II., 1897, H.-17) 

 that the eggs of the New Zealand M. Perusii are demersal, the proof 

 being that ova described as ripe sank in sea-water. Further 

 observations, especially with material the ripeness of which can be 

 demonstrated by its impregnation, are certainly desirable, since the 

 controversy as to the pelagic or demersal nature of the pilchard's egg 

 furnishes ample proof that naturalists of considerable experience may 

 sometimes be mistaken on this point. The matter is, however, of no 

 great importance in connection with my present remarks, for the 

 marked difference which exists between the ova of Atherines and 

 Grey Mullets is not materially lessened by some of the latter being 

 demersal. 



The difference in the larvre of the two families is at least as 

 striking. One naturally expects that the larva newly hatched from 

 a large demersal egg will be larger and more advanced in development 

 than a larva from a small pelagic egg, and this holds good in most 

 respects in the case before us. But in one particular, viz., the 

 elongation of the abdominal region, the larva of the Grey Mullet 

 is, at hatching, very far in advance of the young Atherine. In fact 

 a glance at Eaffaele's figure {op. cit., PI. II., Fig. 17) shows that an 

 extensive elongation of the abdominal region has no part in the 

 metamorphosis of the larva. The much more advanced larva referred 

 by Cunningham {Joiorn. M. B. Assoc, N.S., ii., 1891, p. 73, PI. IV.) 

 to M. chelo confirms this, while the larvre entered in our records 

 illustrate a further point. These larv?e are similar in size and 

 conformation to Cunningham's, and require no separate description 

 beyond the remark that the positions of the second dorsal and of 

 the anal fin are clearly indicated by the developing fin-rays. The anus 

 is just in front of the anal fin, a position never attained in the back- 

 ward migration of the anus in the Atherine larva. 



In comparing the Atherine with the Grey Mullet larva it therefore 



Bull. U.S. Fish Comvu, i., 1881, p. 283. 



