THE GYMNOTID EELS OF TROPICAL AMERICA, 183 
size showed the part removed to have been about sixty-five millimeters long and 
ten by six millimeters deep at its base. In repairing these injuries neither had 
regenerated a caudal peduncle. Instead, from the line of injury both had regen- 
erated a broad fan-shaped fin, nine millimeters long on fish “A” (Fig. 23) and 
Fig. 23. Regenerated Tail of Sternarchorhamphus miilleri (Steindachner). Fish “A.” 
twelve millimeters on fish ““B” (Fig. 24). Both regenerated fins had the shape of 
Fic. 24. Regenerated Tail of Sternarchorhamphus miillert (Steindachner). Fish “B.” 
the normal caudal fin, from which they differed in three particulars, (1) both were 
much larger than the normal caudal; (2) each contained more rays than the 
normal caudal which has only ten rays, while the regenerated fin of specimen “A,” 
nine millimeters long, contained twenty, and the fin of “‘B,”’ twelve millimeters long, 
contained twenty-six rays; (3) they were situated at least fifty millimeters nearer 
the head than the normal fin, arising from the body directly and not from the 
slim caudal peduncle. The fin twelve millimeters long differed in still another 
respect; it was confluent ventrally with the anal fin. Figures 23 and 24 show the 
regenerated fins “A” and ‘‘B” respectively, and Figure 25 a normal caudal of this 
Fie. 25. Normal Tail and One Fourth of Caudal Peduncle. Sternarchorhamphus miilleri (Steindachner). 
species. The third specimen had lost only the caudal fin and the extreme tip of 
the caudal peduncle. From the old tissue a small bud of new tissue projected. As 
this was quite small and showed no structure, it is probable that this fish had been 
injured only a short time before it was captured. 
No specimens of Sternarchus albifrons Linnzeus, Sternarchus leptorhynchus 
Ellis, or Porotergus gimbeli Ellis, were found with regenerations, and, the last 
named two species being new, no mutilations have been noticed by others. On 
