108 DR. RICHARDSON'S DESCRIPTION OF AUSTRALIAN FISH. 



M(ena) was sacred to Diana in the character of Hecate, the name of the Port Arthur 

 fish, Latris hecateia, i. e. Ancilla Hecates, is intended, by its allusion to that fact, to in- 

 dicate its affinity to the Mccrue. 



The genus Apsilus, placed by the authors of the ' Histoire des Poissons ' among the 

 Percoids with a single dorsal fin, resembles Latris in the absence of denticulations or 

 spines of any kind on the bones of the gill-plates or shoulder. Apsilus, however, has 

 ciliated scales, palatine teeth, and branching rays in the lower part of the pectoral, which 

 distinguish it abundantly from Latris. The resemblance oi Apsilus fuscus to Casio, and 

 the sparoid family generally, pervades the whole account of it in the ' Histoire des 

 Poissons.' The following is a summary of the generic characters : — 



LATRIS, genus novum. 

 Piscis acanthopterygius, msenoideus. Pinnee (prceter caudalem) esquamosse ; pinna unica 

 dorsi, profundi emarginata, in fossa decumbens : pinnae ventrales sub abdomine 

 medio positse : radii pinnae pectoralis inferiores (novem) simplices nee tamen pro- 

 ducts Preoperculum denticulatum vel integerrimum. Os modic^ protendens. Denies 

 villosi in oris ambitu positi tignoque vomeris ubi decidui ; in ossiculis pharyngeis 

 parvi, subulati, conferti. Palatum linguaque Iseves. Squama marginibus laevissimis. 

 L. hecateia, species unica prob^ cognita. 



Radii.— ^v. 6 - 6 ; P. 9 et IX. ; V. 1|5 ; D. 18|36 ; A. 3|27 ; C. ISf. 

 Since the preceding remarks on the characters and affinities of this fish were read to 

 the Society, I have studied the account of the Cheilodactyli in the ' Histoire des Pois- 

 sons ' with more attention, and I am now satisfied that Latris is very closely allied to 

 Cheilodactylus, not only in general structure and in the forms and integrity of the oper- 

 cular pieces, but also in the minor agreement of the rays of the dorsal being more 

 numerous than in most percoid or scisenoid fishes. I have, however, allowed the pre- 

 ceding remarks to remain unaltered for the purpose of explaining the origin of the 

 generic and specific names, and also because I am not satisfied that Cheilodactylus is in 

 its proper place when ranged in the sciaenoid family. Mr. Gray's suggestion above 

 alluded to is worthy of attention, or at least Cirrhites, Cheironemus, Aplodactylus, 

 Cheilodactylus, Latris, and Nemadactylus may be grouped into a small family, which 

 will take a place intermediate between the Manoidece, Scianoideas, and Percoidea. 

 These genera are remarkable, in the groups in which they at present stand in the sy- 

 stems, for the elongation of the pelvic bones and the consequent backward position of 

 the ventrals, the want of palatine teeth, the unarmed condition of the gill-covers, the 

 small number of the pyloric caeca, and the simplicity of the lower pectoral rays. In 

 Cirrhites the vertical hmb of the preoperculum is denticulated ; but even this approach to 

 the percoid or sciaenoid armature of the opercular pieces is inconspicuous, or altogether 

 wanting in the other genera above-mentioned. The whole group wants revision ; the 

 anatomical structure of the species being less fully detailed than is usual in the ' Histoire 

 des Poissons,' evidently from the scarcity of specimens, and the difficulty of procuring 



