LYCODINiE. 83 



The h eigh t o ver th L- an u s is 4, 1 — 5" o of I lie total length. The head, wliose 

 length is 12,9 — 13,3 °„ of the total length, is not particiilarlx' broad, the trunk is some- 

 what compressed; the tail becomes much compressed and loses gradually in height 

 towards the end. The lower jaw extends almost to the end of the upper. 7 pits for 

 the lateral line along the upper j aw and under the eye. The distance between the 

 snout and the anus is 27,6 — 30,4 "/„ of the total length. The distance of the dorsal 

 fin from the snout is 17,6—18,2 " „ of the total length. The colour uniform yellow- 

 brown. The scales are distributed over the tail and trunk, whilst the head and fins 

 are naked. Lateral line d o u 1) 1 e , d i \- i d e d into a \- e n t r a 1 and m e d i o 1 a t e r a 1 branch, the 

 latter however frequently indistinct. Pyloric appendages not developed. Size 

 181 m m. 



D. 118 — 126. A. 100-104'). P. 13—15. 



Distribution. The .cold area off west Xorwav, east from Iceland, and in the 

 Fceroe Channel; 340 — 620 fathoms. 



Remarks on the Synonymy. 



Lycodes murcena was e.stablislied by CoUett for a 140 uiui. long specimen of an elongated Lycodes, which the North- 

 Atlantic Expedition of 1877 took in the ice-cold waters off Helgeland in Norway, at 350 fathoms depth. In 1S78, off Bear 

 Island and Spitzbergen, in ice-cold water and from depths of 459— 65S fathoms, the North-Atlantic Expedition got 3 other 

 specimens (112 — 198 mm.) hkewise of a very elongated Lycode. which Collett referred to the same species, as he considered 

 certain differences as less essential and a sign of the variability of the species. From a study of the figures 29, 30 and 31 of 

 the chief publication of the North-.\tlantic Expedition's Fishes 1 got however the impression that if the figures were 



correct — they could not belong to one and the same species: figs. 29 and 31 must represent another species than fig. 30. 

 which formed the t\-pe-specimen from the 1877 cruise of the North- Atlantic Expedition. 



After I had had the opportunity, through the kindness of Prof. Collett, to examine 2 of the specimens of the 

 Xorth-.\tlantic Expedition, namely the type-specimen from 1877 and one of the specimens (not figured) from 1S78, my pre- 

 supposition became a certainty: the specimens from the 187S cruise of the North-.\tlantic Expedition ought to form a species 

 by themselves, belonging to the genus Lycodonus Goode & Bean (cf. p. 95) and this 1 proposed to name L. flagellicanda. 

 To this form further are to be referred, the specimens obtained by the EngHsh expeditions of the Knight Errant> and 

 -Triton- in the Fa;roe Channel, and which Gun the r referred to Lycodes jinircena Coll. itlie figures in Chall. Report leave no 

 doubt about the matter), and also the specimens from the Ingolf Expedition referred to L. murana Coll., which were taken 

 north of the Iceland-Fjeroe ridge 2 1. Of the true ^Lycodes murcena^, which ought to be referred to the genus Lycenchelys 

 Gill, only the tvpe-specimen was known until a short time ago, but during the re\asion of my manuscript 1 have furtlier been 

 able to study 2 specimens, taken by the Michael Sars . the one (145 mm. long in 1900 E. from Iceland, the other (iSi mm. 

 long) in 1902 in the Faroe Channel. 



.\ detailed comparison will vindicate the necessity of the intended separation. 



Comparison between Lycenchelys iiutrcuna Coll. and Lycodomis flagellicauda m. 

 The form of the bodv is throughout more elongated in L. flagellicazida ; in /,. murcena 

 namely, the height over the anus is 4,1— 5° o of the total length, in specimens of L. flagellicauda of 

 similar size 3,4— 4,4° o- In other regards also the form is essentially different. L. murcena is a com- 

 pressed form: the trunk is already (if not distended by se.xual products) .somewhat thinner than high, and 

 the tail quickl\- becomes strongly compressed; close behind the anus, the thickness is to the height 



'I According to Collett I). 1 iS, .■\. loo; according to my observations in another specimen 1). 126, .\. 104. 



'I But not the large specimen from Davis Straits, because it forms a distinct species both from L. murana and from 

 L. flagellicauda : Lycenchelys i/igolfiantis (see p. 901. Nor the young specimen from Uie AUantic .S. froui Iceland; though it 

 stands verj- close to L. flagellicauda, it represents in my opinion quite a separate species: Lycodonus ophidiuvi (cf. p. 971. 



