EDIBLE FISHES OF QUEENSLAND.— OGILBT. 5 



"A few words are necessary here with regard to the forms of the 

 Australian Perch described as new by Castelnau and Macleay, the types of all of 

 which are missing. In 1872 the former created three new species to which he 

 gave the names Lates similis, L. .antarcticiis, and L. victorice. To these, between 

 the above date and 1881, he added a fourth species, L. curtus, from the Richmond 

 River, In 1876, Alleyne and Macleay described, under the name Pseudolatcs 

 cavifrons, a North Australian fish, and in the follomng year the latter author 

 redeseribed the same species as Lates darwiniensis ; these two names may be at 

 once dismissed from consideration as being mere synonyms of the wddelj^ dis- 

 tributed L. calcarifer, as an examination of the type specimens at once reveals. 

 Finally in 1881 Macleay described a Lates ramsayi from a single specimen taken 

 in a freshwater pool near Parramatta, the type of which is also missing. "We 

 have, therefore, in the restricted genus Percolates, no less than five spurious 

 species, excluding the original P. colonorum, all described from a similar and 

 somewhat limited area, on 'vhat appear to be insufficient grounds. That none ol 

 the later writers on Australian fishes (Johnston, Catalogue of Tasmanian Fishes, 

 1882, McCoy, loc. eit., 1878, and Lucas, Census of Victorian Fishes, 1889) except 

 the author (Catalogue of New South Wales Fishes, 1885), venture an opinion on 

 their specific identity or otherwise, is, it must be conceded, a most unsatisfactory 

 state of affairs, and merits, therefore, a more extended inquiry than is usually 

 necessary in such cases." 



To these must now be added Percalates fluviatilis Stead, the claims of 

 which have been so strenuously put forward by its author. With this form I 

 shall deal on a future page. Of Steindachner's two species, both from Port 

 Jackson or its immediate neighbourhood, I am unable to say anything from 

 personal knowledge, not being in a position to consult his descriptions or figure, 

 but there can be no doubt as to their identity with one or other of the forms of 

 P. colonorum. Of the first, Dules novemaculeatus, indeed, McCulloch writes as 

 follows: — "It appears to me that Steindachner's figure of Bides novemaculeatus 

 exactly represents the slender form; and, beyond such differences as would be 

 caused by shrinkage due to different methods of preservation (alcohol Stein- 

 dachner and formalin Stead), it does not differ from Mr. Stead's figure 

 published in the Edible Fishes of New South Wales." 



My original remarks regarding Castelnau 's four species are : — 

 "In L. similis the characters relied on for its separation from the type 

 species are absurdly inadequate; these are the shorter snout, which is 'sensibly 

 less than the diameter of the eye'; with the majority of fishes the comparative 

 size of the eye to the head and to the snout varies with the age of the individual, 

 the young fish having that organ much larger proportionately than the adult. 

 As I have shown above the great variation existing between the comparative 

 measurements of the eye and the snout in twenty five specimens of indubitable 

 P. colonorum, ranging from Adelaide to the Richmond River, it is manifest that 

 the stress laid upon this character is altogether misleading, and must be regarded 

 as valueless. The coarser denticulations of the preopercle are also a sign of 



