IvYCODIN^. 



but also for a considerable distance alon^ the underside of the tail. The jjectoral fin has 23 rays and 

 is not indented at its posterior margin. Pyloric appendages ai'e wanting. 



The others are niediuui-sized or larger specimens, the most important measurements of which 

 are the following: 



The lengtli of the head is therefore 2i--23,2'^,m tlie distance from the snout to the anus 

 37,5-39,9^',,, the height o\-er the anus 10 -13,8" „ of the total length. 



The colouration of the three medium-sized individuals (371 — 383 nnn.) can be derived from 

 that of the young individual referred to above. In the light vertical bands, whose number is 

 6 — 9, spots or stripes of the dark ground-colour have appeared, both on the dorsal fins and lower 

 down (Tab. Ill, fig. 2 b). The Hght neck-band is fully developed in one of the.se specimens and extends 

 from gill-cover to gill-cover, enclosing a dark stripe; in the second specimen the neck-band is restricted 

 to one, yet of good .size, light spot on each side of the neck, enclosing a dark spot: in the third there 

 is only an ill-defined lighter part on the upper edge of the gill-cover. - In the large specimens the 

 light bands are still further re.solved into festoon-shaped markings (Talx III, fig. 2 c). 



The pectoral fins have 23 rays in four specimens, 22 in the fifth; in none of them is there an\- 

 indentation of the posterior edge of tire fin. In two of the specimens the dorsal fin has 115 rays, 

 the anal 97. 



The .scal\ covering has attained its full distribution, forwards as far as the neck and base of 

 the ventral fins, also on the unpaired fins to near their margin. 



After what has been said above, the lateral line presents the somewhat unusual, as it seems, 

 peculiaritN tliat the mediolateral line is rather distinct in several of the specimens. 



The gut is lacking in pyloric appendages; in several specimens it was quite full of .skeletal 

 remains of echinodenns (ophiuroids). 



Relation o f L. esmarkn t o A. valilii. 



After Prof. CoUett had in his later treatises withdrawn his earlier expressed opinion that /-. 

 esmarkii was the same species as the (Greenland L. valilii Reinh., Prof. V . \. Sinitt and Dr. Einar 

 Lonnberg again took up the matter and declared themselves unable to separate the two forms from 

 one another. This is not remarkable in itself, since neither of these authors have had specimens of 

 L. valilii at their disposal; their acquaintance with this fish was restricted to what they cotild read 

 of it in Liitken and Collett. And their dotibts concerning the independence of the two forms, might 

 be justified even more as some of the distinctions put forward by Collett are not constant. 



There is not the difference with regard to the length of the head, which Collett has mentioned, 

 nameh that the head in [..esmarkii is on the whole somewhat longer than in /^.valilii. Lonnberg 



