8 REV. R. T. LOWE'S SUPPLEMENT TO HIS 



under the name long since applied by Willughby to designate the species ; although 

 by him employed especially in reference to the second state or variety above mentioned, 

 which also was the variety originally described by Rondeletius. 



Pompilus Bennettn. 



Leirus Bennettii, nob. in Camb. Trans. VI. 1, 199, t. V. — Syn. Mad. Fish. p. 179. 



Centrolophus ovalis, Cuv. et Val. IX. 346. 



crassus. lb. 348. 



The genus Leirus proves identical with Centrolophus, Lac, which in its turn, if not 

 intolerable in itself (see Cuv. and Val. IX. 331.), must yield precedence to the prior 

 claims of Pompilus, Rond. The species described by the Ichthyologist of Montpellier, 

 {Centrolophus pompilus, Auct.) ought, on the other hand, as long ago by Willughby, to 

 be called Pompilus Rondeletii. 



Brama Haii, Bl. " Freira."— Syn. Mad. Fish. p. 179. 



The true affinities of this fish are most assuredly Scombridal, or to speak more 

 strictly, Coryphsenidal. 



It was in reconsidering those of Brama, and in reaching this conclusion, that I was 

 first led to detect the true affinities and synonyms of Leirus. It was not till convinced 

 of the necessity of placing Brama next to Pompilus (Centrolophus, Lac), that I disco- 

 vered Leirus Bennettii to be a genuine species of this last-named genus. 



So valuable are these studies of affinities ; and thus do even errors often lead to 

 valuable truth. I was not wrong, however, in associating Leirus Bennettii with Brama ; 

 but in not referring sooner it, or rather both, to the neighbourhood of Pompilus. 



Fam. MuGiLiDiE. 



MuGiL MADERENSis. " Tttinha de moda." 



This is the fish published, in the former part of this list, under the name and with 

 the synonyms of M. Chelo, Cuv. Comparing it, however, more closely with the de- 

 scription of M. Chelo in the eleventh volume of MM. Cuvier and Valenciennes' 

 Histoire, I find the following principal discrepancies in the Maderan fish : — 



1 . The produced scaly appendages at the base of the first dorsal fin extend consider- 

 ably beyond the base of the fourth spine. 



2. The maxillary is but very slightly S-like. 



3. The upper Up is by no means peculiarly thick and fleshy, but rather the contrary. 



4. It is a shallower, less deep fish in proportion to its length. 



5. The tongue is altogether smooth, without any " asperites " whatever, at the edges 

 or anterior end of the " arete," which cannot be called " tr^s-aigue." 



6. The palate also is entirely smooth, not papillose near the vomer. 



7. A conspicuous bright metallic brassy spot on the opercula, as in M. auratus, Cuv. 

 and Val. 



