oS MEMOIES OF THE QVEEXSLAXD MUSEUM. 



it were identical with the Dcnttx fitrrosns ol' the Histoire Natm'eUe. Bleeker, 

 however, two years later, as mentioued above, showed that Daj''s fish was 

 inseparable from Xcmiptcrus tceiiiopterus,^^ which identification was subsequently 

 admitted to be correct by Day himself. In view, therefore, of the failure of 

 Indian naturalists to rediscover the true D. furcosus, the questiou arises as to 

 whether D. tanioptcrus was not founded on a more carefully presei-ved specimen 

 of the former fish. The eastern form has been recorded from Amboina, the 

 Louisiade Archipelago, Damlay ( ? Darnley) Island, and Australia {Giiiithcr) ; 

 Palm Islands, Cape Grenville, North and North-East Australia [Muclrajj). 

 There is, therefore, a wide and unbridged gulf between the reputed ranges of the 

 two forms; nor should it be forgotten that Bleeker, with the illimitable resources 

 at his command, never got either species. 



I, therefore, propose to separate the eastern fish as Nemipicnts gunthcri, 

 with the following synonymy, leaving to my Indian confreres the task of clearing 

 up the mystery of D. furcosus. 



NEMIPTERUS GUNTHERI nom. nov. 

 Synayris furcosus Giinther, Brit. Mus. Catal. Fish., i, 1859, p. 373; Alle.vne & Mai-leay, Proc. 

 Linu. Soc. N. S. Wales, i, 1877, p. 271; Maeleay, Pioc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, v, 1881, 

 p. 383; id., ibid., viii, 1863, p. 262. Not Dentex furcosus Cuvier & Valenciennes. 



Dentcx furcosus Bleeker, Yerh. Akad. Amst. xiii, 1873, Kev. Espec. Dentex, etc., p. 12; id. Atlas 

 Ichtli.. viii, 1S77, ]i. S5. After Si/ii-ii/ri.i fiircosit.v Giintlior, 



I ajjpcnd here the description of a uui(|ue sj)eeimeu of Ncinipfi rus in the 

 collection of the (Queensland lluseuiu, in order to call the attention of northern 

 observers to tliis extraordinai'ily deep foi'iu, and perchance obtain further 

 examiiles. ^Ic(_'ulIoch suggests that the example has suffered an injury to the 

 si)ine, which might account for the de])th of the body, but the specimen is in good 

 condition and well nourished, and shows no external sign of injury. Should 

 McCulloch's suggestion be coi-rect tlie fish would be classed as .V. rjiiufJii ri 



NEMIPTERUS «p. 



I.itiianu.'i rubit'iinfhts de \'i.s; num. mus. 



Genyoroge rubicaudn Kent, Great Barrier Reef, 1893, p. .'i69; nam. iind. 



This fish was caught at Somerset, N.l^*., I>y .Mi-. Kendal l5i'(iM(lb..iii and 

 measures 218 mm. Reg. No. I. 2580. 



Body subovate, the doi'sal coiitoiii' iiiiieli more ai'i'lird than tlir vrnti'al, its 

 prfifih- cvcmIv roundrd I'l'oiii tiir iiapr lo 111,' caudal fin, (lie highest jjoiiit being- 

 above the base of (lie jicctoral fin ; width of body 2-17 in i(s depth, which is 2-6 in 

 its length and a little more than the length of the hrad. I'audal ])ediiiiele 

 iiiodei-ately stout, its least dei)(li It I in its length and 8-17 in the length of the 

 head. Head three tentiis longer than deeji, the u]iper i)rofile feebly convex, its 

 width about half its length, which is 2-8 in that of the body. Snout with strongly 

 declivous profile, its length 2-5 in that of tiie head. Diameter of eye 1-43 in the 



"Dentex laniopterus (^uvier & N'aleiir-iiMines, Hist.. Nat. L'oiss., vi, 1S30, p-, 216. 



