of the tii> of the snout, mikI iirc tuhiilar, hut coni]);ira- 

 tively sliorter tlnui in the in-eceding speci(!s. The 

 moutli is similar to that oC the coniinon Eel, but the 

 gape is eouiparatively larger, and the lips are still 

 broader, espeeially in front, on the sides behind the 

 tips of the snout and lower jaw, where the outer folds 

 may be expanded almost like win^s. Into the base of 

 the outer fold on the upper jaw projects the lower 

 posterior corner of the preorbilai bone, which is fur- 



anterior part of the upper jaw and on the ti|) of tiie 

 lower, subulate ti'cth are set in a car<l containinjj: se- 

 veral rows, tiie two tirst-nieiitioned groups being often, 

 not always, separated by a toothless space at the above- 

 mentioned constriction. < hi the jaws these p(jinted 

 teeth are continued backwards in a row doul)le in front, 

 single beiiiiid, farthest l)ack on the inside of the above- 

 mentioned great median row of compressed teeth, for 

 a shoi-t distance on its outside. The tongue is free, 



phbri 



epbr I 



pkbr II 



iMi II 



e/tr IV 



phs 



ephr IV 



Fig. 283. Brnuclii.ll arclies of a Conger (Conger niger) seen from above. Natural size. Halves of the right arclies in a natural position, 



those of the left arches bent outwards, so that the under surface of their upper parts is visible. 



glh, glossohyoid (true lingual) bone; cop /—/F, first — fourth copula;; hbr I — /F, first — fourth hypobranchials; cbr 1 — /F, first — fourth cernto- 



branchials; epbr I — IV. first — fourth epibrauchials ; phbr I and //, first and ."second phnryngobraiichials; stbr, stylobranchials; 



pihs, upper, phi, lower pharyngeals. 



nished on the outer side with a large, round hollow, 

 including a muciferous cavity belonging to the cephalic 

 system of the lateral line. The length of the ui)per 

 jaw from the tip of the snout is about 37 or 38 %, 

 the length of the lower jaw about 48 — 52 ?», of the 

 length of the head. In front, both on the under sur- 

 face of the rostro-ethmoidal tip (of the interniaxillaries, 

 according to Peters' theory) and on the vomer, in tiie 



Scandinavian Fishes. 



narrowing abruptly to a point. The branchial arches 

 (tig. 283) are here too without gill-rakers, and the cardi- 

 form pharyngeal teeth resemble those of the common 

 Eel. The structure of tlie opercular apparatus we have 

 mentioned abo\e. To the gill-openings essentially the 

 same remarks apply as in the case of the common Eel. 

 The dorsal and anal tins difi'er from those of the 

 common Eel in having their longest rays somewhat 



131 



