214 ANGLER. 



tinguished. During my last visit to Frankfort, Dr. Riippell 

 shewed me several small specimens of a hophius collected by 

 himself at Messina, which, after a careful comparison with mature 

 ones, I declared to be the young of L. piscatorius , in spite of 

 their apjjarent dissimilarity, an opinion which has been enter- 

 tained by Dr. RiippcU from the time that they first came into 

 his hands. Having since compared those specimens and the 

 account of Diiben and Koren, with a sketch fortunately made 

 by Riippell on the spot, and kindly presented to me, I have 

 now not the slightest doubt that L. eurypterus is identical with 

 the Frankfort specimens, and that both are the young of L. 

 piscatorius. 



In the Mediterranean fishes the first ray is comparatively 

 longer thati in the Scandinavian, and terminates in two com- 

 pressed flaps, which perhaps are only a more developed form 

 of the transverse cylindrical knob in L. eurypterus. How 

 variable the length and the shape of the fins and of their 

 appendages are, even in specimens of the same size and age, 

 is fully proved by the Scandinavian specimens, one of which 

 has the ventral twice as long as the other. Further, the 

 anterior dorsal spine, whether it serve as a bait to attract 

 other fish, (which is by no means improbable,) or as an organ 

 of touch, is constantly exposed to injury from the peculiarity 

 of its function. Finding it, however, sometimes very long and 

 fully developed in old fishes, Ave cannot hesitate to assume 

 that it is reproduced when lost; and this appears the more 

 probable, if we consider that portions of the fin rays, as well 

 as of the barbels, are reproduced in other fishes. We cannot 

 therefore think it a matter of any importance when we find 

 the anterior dorsal spine of different length, and its tentacle of 

 different shape. Both are subject to an indefinite number of 

 accidental and individual changes, besides the constant differences 

 by which the young fish is distinguished from the old one. 

 Finally, another source of discrepancy in the descriptions and 

 representations of the authors named, is the alteration Avhich 

 the fishes undergo by their preservation in spirits. A part or 

 all of the tender filaments in which the rays terminate are 

 easily lost, and the fins themselves are considerably shrivelled 

 up, so that it would be impossible to reproduce a figure of 

 the present Frankfort specimens similar to that which was 



