128 



BLENNOID FORKBEARD. 



Lesser Hake, Pennant; pi. 32, edition of 1770. 



Phycis hlennoides Guntiier's Catalogue Bi'itish Museum, 



vol. iv, p. 351. 



It is the opinion of Cuvier as well as of Dr. Guntlier that 

 this and the last-named are the same species; and with such 

 an authority we leave the subject as it stands; but it is 

 certain that the aspect of these fishes, as T am accustomed to 

 see them, is not a little different, as will be discerned from 

 the figures we have given, which are those of an example 

 that measured in length twenty-eight inches, and of a young 

 one of the length of four inches, which was drawn up in 

 the slicll of a living Pimia ingens from the depth of about 

 forty fathoms. It is remarkable that this young example, which 

 will be described in reference to the larger specimen, and 

 which, although injured, has been sent to the British jMuscum, 

 with another of nearly like size mentioned by Mr. Yarrell, 

 were taken in the same manner, although with the lapse of 

 several years between, are the only fishes I have ever known 

 to be so caught, although the Pinnce are often drawn up by the 

 lines of fishermen. The pro]3ortions of the body in what we 

 term the Blennoid Forkbeard are more slender than what we 

 have noticed in the Hake's Dame; the depth of the body in 

 the latter in front of the second dorsal fin, wliere it is deepest 

 measuring one fourth of the length from the snout to the root 

 of the tail, while in the Blennoid species it is equal to five 

 portions and three fourths of the same length. In the first 

 named fish also the sloping forward of the body begins behind 

 the first dorsal fin, but in the Blennoid fish it scarcely begins 

 to slope until over the eye; the under jaAV also apj^eared 

 decidedly shorter in proportion, and the lateral line less bent 

 in its progress. It is a subject of regret that the scales were 



