11 



the Perch family as Dides amhiguiis.* It is doubtful whether the fish 

 now under notice may not have to be placed under a new genus. Its 

 general characters are as follows : — B.6, D. 9^,0, A.3/8, P.13 ; L. tran. 

 7/16, L. lat. 52; V.1/5; and therefore, according to Dr. Gunther, it 

 cannot be included within the genus Dules, because he has based his 

 genera principally upon the number of spines in the dorsal fin. It may 

 more properly belong to the genus Gerres, of the family PrisiipomatidcE. 

 It is possible, however, that the spines of the dorsal, as in Latrls, are 

 not constant. It would therefore be necessary to examine more 

 specimens before it could be properly classified. 



Mr. E. M. JoHXSTOX, F.L.S., read the two following papers : — The 

 first, by himself, entitled "A description of two new species of fish" 

 fTrachkltfhys Maclemji, and Mendosoma Allporti), caught in the estuary 

 of the Derwent. The second, by the Eev. J. E. Tenison-Woods, 

 F.L.S., F.G.S., etc., entitled "Introductory Notes to the Natural 

 History of Tasmania." 



The latter paper gave a most valuable synopsis of the leading features 

 of the Tasmanian flora and fauna. Comparisons were made with 

 corresponding features in the neighbouring colonies and elsewhere, which 

 led to much interesting speculation. It was explained that this was the 

 forerunner of a series of similar short papers or catalogues relating to 

 the various specific branches of the natural history of Tasmania, to be 

 undertaken by Mr. Woods in conjunction with several local naturalists, 

 who are making the particular branches their special study. 



Interesting discussion followed the reading of Mr. Wood's paper, in 

 which His Honor Mr. Justice Dobson, Mr. C. H. Grant, Mr. Barnard, 

 Mr. Johnston, and others took part. It was suggested that great care 

 should be taken in drawing conclusions between two different provinces 

 whose particular branches of natural history were unequally 

 investigated. Unqualified comparisons between two districts, whose 

 particular branches of natural history were imperfectly investigated, 

 would be misleading. It would also lead to confusion if either of these 

 districts was compared wi'.h one where any of those branches had been 

 fully worked out. 



The meeting closed with the usual vote of thanks to the authors of the 

 papers read. 



*Dr. Gunther describes L. lat. 85. This is an error, as Dr. Eichardson 

 in the original description states it as L. lat. 52. 



