70 



name, and stating that the Tasmanian fish is distinct from 

 the New Zealand one, but giving no reason for this opinion ; 

 not content with this, he further subdivides the Australian 

 form by separating from diemensis the common mullet of the 

 Oippsland Lakes under the name of Agonostoma lacustris. 



In Sir William Macleay's paper on the " Mugilidce of 

 Australia,"t this is the only species of mullet recorded from 

 Tasmania, from whence it is catalogued as Agonostoma 

 diemensis J that author not only considering that its identity 

 with the New Zealand fish had not been satisfactorily estab- 

 lished, but also that Castelnau's Agonostoma lacustris from 

 the Gippsland Lakes was worthy of specific recognition. 

 With neither of these conclusions can I agree, for though 

 the only New Zealand specimens which I have had an 

 opportunity of examining were brought over in ice, scaled 

 and cleaned for sale in Sydney, there is no doubt in my mind 

 as to the correctness of Dr. Giinther's judgment in referring 

 Richardson's fish back to Forster's alhula, while the two 

 continental examples of Agonostomus which have passed 

 through my hands, and which agree perfectly with Castelnau's 

 lacustriSf cannot be specifically separated from the Tasmanian 

 fish. 



Three years subsequent to the appearance of Sir William 

 Macleay's catalogue, Mr. Eobert M. Johnston published a 

 ^* Catalogue of the Fishes of Tasmania," J which included all 

 the species of fishes at that time known to occur within the 

 limits of the Tasmanian fauna. This list was chiefly based 

 on Dr. Griinther's well known British Museum Catalogue of 

 Fishes and Macleay's recently published Australian Catalogue, 

 largely supplemented by its author's close study of the fishes 

 of the colony during a period of six years. Mr. Johnston 

 had also the advantage of being in a position to consult Mr. 

 Morton Allport's MS. list, but, like myself, he does not 

 appear to have seen, or even known of. Dr. Bleeker's paper 

 on the " Fishes of Van Diemen's Land." 



In Mr. Johnston's catalogue we find the first published§ 

 announcement of the occurrence of a second Mugilid, the 

 two species being recorded (pp. 122, 123) as follows : — 



83. Mugil cephalotus, Cuv. and Val. Sand mullet. 



84. Agonostoma forsteri, Bl. Sea mullet. 



A short account, under the above names, of the distribu- 

 tion, habits, mode of capture, etc., of both species will be 

 found on pp. 86 and 87 of the same paper in the chapter 

 devoted to the marine food fishes. 



+ Published May, 1880. 



X Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. 1882, pp. 63-144. 



§Allport had previously included the species, but I am unable to say under 

 what name. 



