LYCODIN.i;. 



95 



Under Lycenchelys murccna (p. 83—86) I have described this form in detail and indicated its 

 independence from L. murccna. 



In ni\- preliminar\- notice on the Lycodiiia of the Ingolf Expedition (1. c.) the present form is 

 o-iven as a Lycoichelys., with the addition however that it wonld seem most natnral to remove it and 



O o 



Fig. 29— 30. Lycodonus flagellicatcda, seen from the side and above, x i. 



Scales are omitted, likewise the small bon}- plates along the bases of the unpaired fins. The two rings over the upper figure 



represent the form of a cross-section at the place indicated. 



Fig. 31 — 33. Head of Lycodouiis flagellicauda, seen from above, the side and below. X 5/j. 



make it into a separate genus. On furtlier research I find this supposition strengthened: Lycenchelys !> 

 flagellicauda (and the following species, L. ophidium) are of one genus with Lycodonus Goode & Bean. 



The genus Lycodonus was founded in 1883 by the American ichthyologists Goode & Bean 

 I Bull. Mu.s. Comp. Zool. X, No. 5, p. 208) with a single species: L. mirahtlis. In 1895, when this fish was 

 again mentioned by the .same authors in their work Oceanic Ichthyology (p. 312), a considerable 

 number of specimens had been taken off the coast of New England, in deep water (721— 1309 fathoms). 

 Our Museum possesses two specimens presented by the Smithsonian Institution, so that I can judge 

 of it from personal observation. 



The two most important peculiarities, which in my opinion, specially characterise the genus 

 Lycodonus, are shared in common by this species and L. flagellicauda (and the succeeding /,.c;>/m'<//>««): 

 first and foremost, the number of the branchiostegal rays, which is only 5 on each side (in Lycenchelys 



