400 RERPORT— 1840. 
Finally, the species of Vertebrata which appear at present 
to be peculiar to Ireland, are six in number; two Mammals, 
Mus hibernicus (not yet properly established as a species) and 
Lepus hibernicus; and four Fishes, Coregonus Pollan, Couchia 
minor}, Lepadogaster cephalus, and Echiodon Drummondii. 
Further investigation will, in all probability, show that some 
of these species are found elsewhere. 
PART VI. 
Conclusion. 
In addition to the foregoing comparative catalogue, it has 
been thought desirable that a catalogue proper, or one con- 
taining the Irish species only, should be appended to this 
Report. It here follows, and with it are local lists :—of these, 
a few more could have been given, but the six which are intro- 
duced comprise all that were considered necessary for the 
present purpose. The idea of giving these occurred so late, 
that there was not time to perfect them, but in so far as they 
extend they are believed to be critically correct. The columns 
headed “‘ Elsewhere in North,” &c. are added for the recep- 
tion only of such species as are not found in the restricted 
localities comprised in the one or two preceding columns. For 
the Belfast list I am myself accountable, together with the 
greater part of what is contained in the columns headed 
“Elsewhere,” &c. The list for ‘‘ N. W. Donegal” is derived 
from Mr. John Vandeleur Stewart's contribution to the 5th 
vol. of the Magazine of Natural History on the Mammalia 
and Birds of that district: additions made since its publica- 
tion have been kindly communicated to me by Mr. Stewart, 
and are included; at his desire likewise some two or three 
species noticed in his published catalogue are here omitted. 
The lists for Dublin and Youghal were contributed by Mr. 
Robert Ball. ‘‘ West of Connaught” is derived from different 
sources; ‘‘ Tralee” from a list favoured me some years ago by 
an ardent and accurate naturalist, Mr. Thomas F. Neligan, 
since deceased. ‘The distance of twenty miles round Belfast, 
Dublin, and Youghal is comprised in the respective catalogues. 
The ? throughout the columns implies doubt as to species, and 
not as to habitat; the * denotes presence. 
+ Mr. Yarrell, perhaps judiciously, considers this too minute to be satisfac- 
torily characterised as a species. The difference, however, in size between it 
and Gadus argenteolus, Mont., is so trivial, that if the one be acknowledged, 
the other has all but equal claims to be so. 
