32 



LYCODIN.E. 



considers tliat his specimen (wliich I ha\e examined in detail p. 28 — 30) fills np the gap between the 

 two forms in this regard. L on n berg might even have concluded this from the large series of 

 measurements of L. esmarkii, which Collett published in 1884. Flitting these into percentages, they 

 show that the length of the head in A. esiiiarkii \-aries from 19,2 — 24",, of the total length; as the 

 relation in L. vahlii according to numerous measurements by myself, is 18,8 — 23,8 ° o, no specific difference 

 consequenth' can be founded on this. Nor does the second important proportion give an\- basis for a 

 distinction; the distance between the snout and the anus for example is in L.esmarku 38—42,9",), 

 in Z. vahlii 36,5 — 42,3 °oM- 



When Collett further asserts that the shortness of the row of teeth on the palatal bones 

 distinguishes /,. esniarkii from L. vahlii ^ where this row is as a rule longer than that on the inter- 

 maxillary, seldom if ever shorter, he has allowed himself to be misled by Liitken's erroneous observa- 

 tions; as we ha^•e seen (p. 18 & p. 20) the palatal row of teeth in the adult males of L. vahlii is 

 alwa\s shorter than that on the intermaxillarw This character on whose uucertaint\' Prof. S m i 1 1 

 has alread\' remarked, must therefore also fall to the ground. 



Lasth', Lonnberg remarks that little reliance can be placed on the character, that L. vahlii 

 has only one, L. esmarkii two lateral lines, since Collett has seen traces of a mediolateral lateral line 

 in one of the t\'pe-specimens of L. vahlii, and conversely the mediolateral line in L. esmarkii is often 

 defaced. This must however be corrected, as L. vahlii never occurs with a mediolateral lateral 

 line; this specimen, on which Collett has based his statement and which is in realit\' one of 

 Reinhardt's t\pe-specimens, is in no wa\" L. vahlii but belongs to the following species which is 

 provided with two lateral lines (see more in detail ]3. 36). 



If now, one wishes to settle the independence oi L. esmarkii - just as it has been done abo\'e, 

 by consideration of the identical and exclusion of the unrelated elements — as against L. vahlii , one 

 must first and foremost lay stress on the following characters: (i) want of p^doric appendages; (2) the 

 larger number of ra\s in the pectorals; (3) the characteristic colouration; (4) the double (ventral and 

 mediolateral) lateral line. 



The\' differ from one another also in biological relations; /-. esmarkii li\'es on the whole at 



greater depths than L. vahlii^ and feeds chiefh' on echinoderms whilst L. vahlii feeds on Crustacea 



and Mollusca. 



Distribution. 



According to Collett, L. esmarkii must be considered a stationar\- and scarcely a rare 

 fish on the coasts of Finmark; almost all the specimens examined hitherto have been caught in the 

 \'aranger Fjord on lines, and at the depth of 150—200 fathoms. Between Norwa\' and Bear 

 Island (73" 3' N.L. iS^ 30' E.L.), where the depth was 410 m. and bottom-temperature -^ i C. the 

 Nathorst Expedition caught the young specimen (192 mm.| referred to in detail above (p. 28) on the 

 4th of September 1898. 



It was taken by the Norwegian Fisheries steamer Michael Sars in the summer of 1902 at 

 the following places: Slope between Norway and Shetland (62° 30' N.L. 1° 56' E.L.), depth 



') The apparently smaller variation in L. esmarkii arises from the fact tliat the numbers are based on measurements 

 of only 5 specimens' and of tliese but one only was a young indi\-idual. (.Appendix: in one of the specimens obtained later 

 |<tMichael Sarsi 1902J the distance between the snout and the anus amounts to onlj- 37,5% of the total length). 



