l8 LYCODIN^. 



As a determining character, he first names the colour whicli, in tlie Iceland specimens is 

 «of a perfectly imiform grayish or gray-brownish, without bands, network or the like, either on the 

 back or fins; the only marking apparent to the eye is that the under part of the belly and head are 

 somewhat lighter, though to a varying degree in the different individuals, and a whiter part especially 

 is present at the corners of the mouth, embracing generalh' the limbs of the underjaw and the 

 overlip and with a tolerably sharp boundary' where it meets the darker head above. It may be 

 remarked meantime that L. vahlii — according to Liitken's own perfectly correct statement — has 

 only dark bands in the young, and that the bands vin the old (at least in the males) seem to dissolve 

 entirely into an uniform dark colour . Since he pointed out the probable difference in the colouring, 

 Liitken has obviously compared the Iceland specimens with young L. vahlii; if the comparison 

 however had been made with older L. vahlii — which would have been better, since L. lugubris 

 Liitken consisted only of developed specimens — the result would have been quite different, namely 

 that there was the most perfect agreement between them; even the white part along the limbs of the 

 underjaw and the overlip are found in individual larger males oiL. vahlii. An important patch of colour, 

 which Liitken either overlooked or attached no weight to, has also to be mentioned: in the anterior 

 corner of the dorsal fin the characteristic dark spot of L. vahlii-gracilis, so often referred to above, is 

 clearly seen in two specimens, less clearly in the third, of L. lugubris. 



Again, according to Liitken, the Iceland form differs from the Greenland in having fewer 

 rays in the pectorals, namely 17 — iS against 19 — 20 in L. vahlii. The break is rather small b)- itself 

 to make one think this a good specific character to distinguish it from L. vahlii '. It is due to chance 

 also that all Liitken's specimens showed the low number. One specimen sent from Arnarfjord in the 

 North-West Land in 1894, and ascribed by Liitken himself to L. lugubin's., possesses 19 rays in the 

 pectorals; I find the same number in a specimen which came from the same fjord as those of Liitken, 

 namely ©fjord, and would be ascribed to L. lugubris Liitk. — Since the numbers of the rays in 

 the pectorals thus overlap in the two forms, this loses essential importance as a specific determining 

 character. 



A further specific character is found by Liitken in this, that whilst the row of palatal teeth 

 is as a rule longer than that on the intermaxillary in L. vahlii , very rarely if ever, shorter than 

 on the latter, in L. lugubris it is always somewhat shorter than that on the intermaxillary. To 

 obtain this result Liitken must certainly have had before him male individuals of L. litgubris., 

 and oi L. vahlii females more particularly; because in the single J L. lugubris., in the collection of the 

 Museum, the row of teeth on the palatal is of the same length (a little longer indeed on the one 

 side) as that on the intermaxillary; and contrariwise, I find that the row on the palatals is distinctly 

 shorter than that on the intermaxillary in all older males of L. vahlii. This, which Liitken had 

 taken for a specific distinction, is thus reduced to a sexual character, which apj^ears equally in the 

 one form as in the other. 



I think I have thus sufficiently explained the untenableness of Liitken's expressed reasons 

 for considering L. lugubris distinct from L. vahlii. There remains only to show from measurements 

 of L. lugubris^ that it and L. vahlii-gracilis are in perfect agreement. 



