184 NORTH SEA INVESTIGATIONS. 
surface precludes the presence of such asperities as are present in 
R. blanda ; while the figure, so far as it resembles anything that is 
likely to have an actual existence, is more lke A. asterias than 
Rk. blanda. It having proved impossible to procure specimens of a 
spotted ray from the same locality, we are compelled to pass the 
species over as insufficiently defined. 
Turning to British authors, Montagu’s descriptive remarks apply 
only to the smaller British species of spotted ray, the varieties he 
mentions being merely colour phases. He states, however, that 
R. maculata grows to a larger size than R. clavata, which is not the 
case in any district with which I am acquainted. It is therefore 
possible that he knew the larger species, but did not recognise it as 
distinct. However, as his description is obviously based on the 
smaller, his claim as sponsor thereto holds good. 
Day’s figure of R. maculata is undoubtedly taken from an imma- 
ture male of R. blanda, which appears from the scale given to have 
been about 25 inches across the disc. The author remarks that in 
this specimen the spots were rather closer together than usual, but 
the drawing does not strike one as a very successful illustration of 
either species. The description given in the text refers chiefly to 
the smaller species. 
Couch evidently selected a specimen of R. blanda for special de- 
scription, but his general remarks apply to both species, and his 
figure specially to neither, though probably taken, at least as far as 
the spots are concerned, from R. maculata. Subsequent to the pubh- 
cation of his work on the British fishes, the late Dr. Day described 
as new to Britain a spotted ray which he considered to be identical 
with R. punctata, Risso. It was stated, possibly by a clerical error, 
that the teeth were larger than those of R. maculata. The identity 
of the specimen is now lost, but the Day collection, now in the 
British Museum, contains a small spotted ray, which bore no label 
when received at South Kensington. It is undoubtedly a young 
example of R. blanda, but it remains uncertain whether it is the 
specimen recorded as Rf. punctata. 
But if our ichthyologists have hitherto failed to distinaranet 
between R. maculata and R. blanda, the same reproach cannot be 
urged against our fishermen and fish merchants. Under the names 
of Homelyn and Blonde, or Blund, respectively, these two species 
have long been recognised as distinct at Grimsby, and presumably 
at the other great fishing centres of the North Sea. It is true that, 
owing to the scarcity of young blondes, many are unable to distin- 
euish the latter from homelyns, but certain specific characters are 
well enough known to those specially engaged in the skate trade. 
The name “ blonde” is said to have been derived from the Belgian 
