21) 



anv iitlu-r it:i>(iii lliaii tlie, attvr all. verv jiuod uiic, tliat tlifV Wfrc cuii- 

 nected witli oiif aiidtlici- liy all juLssililc transitions; Kaiip'ti European specic-s 

 of Anyiiilld, jiarticularly, have l)oen niucli i-eilucrd in nuniber, l'roni c. "20 tn 

 2 or 1. But tliougii \\e must agree witli Gimther in this reduction, we want 

 a littk' more explanatiou, and tlie above statements give ns some holp tliat 

 way. — It will easily be understood tbat tbe size of tlie eyes and the form of 

 tlie bead can scarcely be good si)ecitic cbaracters, as tbey are dependent upon 

 tbe breedi ug- dress of tbe eel; but in Dr. Kaiip: <Ciikdogne of Apodul Fhh 

 1856«, p. 32, tbese very cbaracters are used to mark out tbe tirst group of 

 species, cousisting of 4. Of tbese A. Kieneri is a questionable Anguilla wbicb 

 I sliall bere leave »juite out of consideration [Fr. Dmj bas tbougbt to recog- 

 nise in it a Lycodes); tbe 3 otbers are bttle silver (or balf-silver) eels, all of 

 tbeiu males I dåre say. of sizes between 18,- and 13„; Eugbsb inebes. 



Kmip's second group of species is cliaracterized by a more longisb 

 snont and a taber dorsal tin, and will tims particularl}- embrace yellow eels 

 and females; A. nianjituitu. A. ancidihiY A. (dtirostriti, and A. pUdyccphula 

 must tbus be looked upon as little yellow eels, A. latirosfris and A. mpitouc 

 as frog-moutbed eels, A. morcna;' and A. mehmochir'^ as silver eels. 



It would be a good tbing. no doubt, if all tbe sjiecies Avithin tbe wbole 

 family of Murcenida could be subject to a revision wbere tbere were tbe ma- 

 terials for it; for as long as not tbe slightest attention is paid to tbe sex or 

 tbe breedingdress of tbe eels in tbe descriptions of the species, we cannot ex- 

 pect the latter to satisly our just demands. This bas not beeu done in any 

 of tbe more comprehensive works, nor could it be done as tbese tbings have 

 not beeu more closely elucidated till after tbey were written. In bis »Cata- 

 logue of the Fisbes in tbe British JVluseum, Vol. VIII. 1870« Gunther, in 

 grouping tbe species witbin the geuiis Anguilla, tries to avoid such cbaracters 

 as tbe form of the suout, tbe size of the eyes, etc, which are known to be 

 subject to great individual variation, but he supposes uevertheless tbat tbe 

 groups a Eye considerajjly shorter tban tbe snout« and ji >Eye not shorter 

 tban the snout« eau be maiutaiued. Among fi he couuts ouly A. kieneri: but 

 maiiy of our common male silver eels must beloug to /^, while the females and 

 a number of tbe males must be clas.sified under a. See for instance plate II, 

 lig. (i a; tbe snout of tlie specimen which is represeuted is even shorter tban 

 tbe diameter of tbe eye. 



