316 ede -REPORT—1845. Thatial ae iia Ges, 
fibres, The specks however are not confined to these lines. The belly is without specks, 
put is marked by fine oblique brown lines which meet on the mesial line beneath, in an acute 
angle, and thus produce a series of chevrons reaching from the gill-opening to the anus. 
I had given a specific name to Dr. Cantor’s specimen, which was altered to marmoratus, on 
a Monopterus so named by the authors of the ‘ Fauna Japonica,’ having reached the British 
Museum. This fish is 23 inches in length, and the vent is rather farther back than in the 
Chinese example, being only 3-2 inches distant from the point of the tail. Three rays ap- 
peared very obscurely in the extreme tip of the tail. 
Hab. Chusan. 
Monorrerus? HELVoLUs. Icon. Reeves, t. nullo numero; Hardw. 312. 
The figure represents a fish with a depressed head, a blunt snout, no nasal tubes, and the 
general form of the preceding Monopteri. The position of the anal aperture is not indicated. 
The colour is rich reddish-orange, like that of the Cyprinus auratus, varied only by a series 
of black dots along the lateral line. Eye small, silvery, and placed rather high. 
Hab. Canton. 
OpHICARDIA XANTHOGNATHA, Richardson (Monopterus), Ichth. Voy. 
Sulph. p. 118. pl. 52. f.'7. Icon. Reeves, 221; Hardw. Malac. 311. 
Chinese name, Hwang sae shen (Birch); Wang sae shen, “ Yellow-jawed 
eel” (Reeves). Genus, Ophicardia, M Clelland. 
We have seen no specimen of this fish, and we were unable at the time of the publication 
of the ‘ Ichthyology of the Voyage of the Sulphur,’ to place in it its proper genus; but having 
since received Mr. M‘Clelland’s important paper on the Apodal fishes of Bengal, and com- 
pared his outline figure and account of Ophicardia phayriana with Mr. Reeves’s drawing, we 
have no doubt of both being members of one genus. In the Chinese fish the mouth is cleft 
rather farther past the eye, and this is the chief external difference between it and phayriana. 
Hab. Canton. 
ADDENDA. 
The preceding report was drawn up before any portion of the Ichthyology 
of the ‘Fauna Japonica’ had reached this country, but as the successive 
decades of that important work came out, the new scientific names therein 
published have been substituted for those which I had previously imposed, 
the descriptions of such species have been struck out, and the Japanese fish 
which had not been detected on the coasts of China were added. I have 
also availed myself of the specimens of Japanese fish which the British Mu- 
seum has from time to time received from Germany, and have adopted the 
names on their several labels. But notwithstanding every exertion to avoid 
the introduction of synonymous appellations, this evil cannot be entirely 
averted, in cases like the present, when several works on the same subjects 
are coming out simultaneously. In some instances the names proposed by 
English ichthyologists have the priority over those used in the ‘ Fauna Ja- 
ponica,’ the authors of this work having probably had no opportunity of 
consulting the papers of Dr. Cantor and of John M‘Clelland, Esq., of the 
Bengal Medical Service, published in India. There is also some interference 
of names between the ‘ Fauna Japonica’ and the ‘ Ichthyology of the Voyage 
of the Sulphur,’ composed of three fasciculi, of which the first one was pub- 
lished in April 1844, and the third in October 1845. I may add also that 
the genus Hoplegnathus proposed by me in March 1841, and published in 
the Transactions of the Zoological Society of London in 1842, is identical 
with the Scarodon of the ‘Fauna Japonica.’ The tenth decade of this latter 
work was brought to this country in March 1846, by its publisher, when the’ 
seventh sheet of the Report was in the press, and it is therefore necessary to 
make such corrections and additions to the previous sheets as are requisite 
