250 



SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 



rays — one above and two below, however, being ex- 

 ceedingly short - — and in our second specimen 13. 



The coloration of this species has been described 

 bv Fkies as follows. The only specimen he ever saw, 

 hnd then been dead far too long to give any certain 

 indications of its colouring during life. Judging by 

 the traces thereof which still remained, he was of opinion 

 that it must be one of the most handsomely marked 

 species. A row of golden spots on a yellowish brown 

 ground still appeared along the middle of the sides, 

 and similar spots followed the rays of both dorsal 

 tins and of the upper half of the caudal fin. Tlie tip of 

 tlie anal fin was tinged with a darker shade, and the 

 ventral fins, which are still blacker in our other S])e- 

 cimen, were almost inky. According to Collett, the 

 Spots on the sides of the body and the back are darker, 

 and there are no true spots or transverse bands on 

 tlie fins. 



For a long period only one example of this species 

 was kudwn. This was taken in "the large Herring- 

 seines", "in the dee]) water of Gullraar Fjord" off Lyse- 



kil, on the 5th of January, 1838; and the specimen, 

 which has now entirely lost both colour and scales, is 

 still preserved in the Royal Zoological Museum. At a 

 later date, according to Collett, Prof. G. 0. Sars ob- 

 tained another specimen, 59 mm. long, in a dredge, in 

 Christiania Fjord. The third specimen that has yet 

 been found, was taken by Mr. C. A. Hansson, who has 

 done so much for the investigation of the fauna of 

 Bohuslan, "from the throat of a Cod," in Stromstad 

 Fjord, on the 1st of Julv, 1S81. As we have remarked 

 above, this example, which is unfortunately damaged, 

 differs in one or two respects from Fries's type-speci- 

 men; and so far as I can judge, corresponds in every 

 particular, with the exception of the scales on the head", 

 to Canestrini's Gobitis Lesueurii. 



Our knowledge of this species Vjeing so scanty, we 

 have scarcely anything to remark as to its manner of 

 life, save that it is ;i deep-sea form, which, in tlie points 

 where it differs from the preceding species, is distinctly 

 analo":ous to the oroup of the ojenus which we are noM' 

 about to describe. 



The following six "species" form a series of inter- 

 mediate forms between the two preceding species and 

 that given last in the above table, Gohins miniitus. They 

 are also so closely related to each other that the specific 

 distinction, which is difficult to fix, has always been 

 subject to uncertainty. In the nuniber of the scales they 

 correspond most closely to the two preceding species; 

 and here, as in the latter, we find that those which 

 have been distinguished as deep-water forms, have a 

 smaller number of scales on the body. In conjunction 

 with this peculiarit}', the eyes are, as usual, larger in 

 the deep-sea forms; but even among those \vliich live 

 in shallower water, there is a difference in this respect 

 which depends upon a longer or shorter retention of 

 the relatively large eyes as juvenile chai'acters. The 

 same explanation also applies, in my opinion, to the 

 variations in the number of rays in the first dorsal fin. 

 In this respect, as we have mentioned above, we find 

 botii changes of growth from a lower to a higher num- 

 ber and individual deviations from the t)rdinary number. 

 The character given in the above table, on Cullett's 



authority, as distinguishing Gohius srorpioides, also 

 seems to me to be due to nothing more than an indi- 

 vidual deviation. This character too, does not hold 

 good in Winther's example of the species, which ex- 

 ample in this respect resembles the rest of the Scandi- 

 navian Gobies. The elevation of the first dorsal fin 

 W"hich occurs here, as in Gohius Friesii, and which, in 

 particular, has given rise to the name of Gohius orca, 

 is probably a sexual character belonging to the males, 

 or perhaps appears, as is often the case, as a forni- 

 character in certain localities. On this point we are 

 naturally unable to give an opinion with any certainty, 

 for we have not had the opportunit}' of examining moi'e 

 than one specimen of tlie last-mentioned, rare "species". 

 Lastly, with respect to the characters based on the 

 coloration, Heincke, in his excellent account of the 

 colour-variations in Gohius flnvesccns^, has warned us 

 most strongly against the definition of the species ac- 

 cording to these characters, as they have been given 

 up to the present time. 



" It is difficult t(i count tlio l>r.'UH'liiostegal rays in this specimen, as llie braiicbiostegal membranes are turn. Tlie body is very strongly 

 compiesscil and anteriorly contorti-d. 



'' Scbr. Nalnrw. Ver. Scbles. Hoist., 1 (1875) pp. 2G0 etc. 



