Mr. Bennett on some Fishes from Jamaica. 89 
his description of several species of Hemirhamphus, Cuv., forming part 
of the paper just quoted, there is some difficulty in determining the pre- 
sent fish. It can be neither of the West Indian species there mentioned, 
for, with a body four times the length of the lower mandible, it has dor- 
sal and anal fins of equal length. In these particulars, in the silvery 
band along the side, and in the relative length of the pectoral fins (one 
half) to the lower jaw, it agrees with the Hem. erythrorhynchus, Le S.; 
the name of which, although no mention is made of such a marking, 
would appear to indicate the existence of some red on the beak, perhaps 
confined to the tip, as pointed out by Dr. Bancroft. But the upper 
mandible in our fish is certainly not ‘ about the length of the diameter 
** of the eye,”’ scarcely exceeding one half of that diameter ; the num- 
ber of fin-rays is somewhat different, being D. 15, A. 16, instead of 
D. 16, A. 18; and the locality is perfectly distinct, M. Le Sueur’s Hem. 
erythrorhynchus having been obtained by him and M. Péron, in the East 
Indian Seas. These differences induce me to regard Dr. Bancroft’s fish 
as distinct from all those of M. Le Sueur. It is evidently the “‘ Orphie 
*« de Rio-Janeiro, Esox dorso monopterygio, rostro apice coccineo, 
** linea laterali lata, argentea,’? &c. of Commerson’s MSS. as quoted 
by Lacépéde ; in whose Histoire Naturelle des Poissons it forms part of 
his Esoxr Gambarur, a medley composed of this western species, of the 
Hem. marginatus from the Red Sea, and perhaps of a third. With it, 
however, is not associated by M. Lacépéde the Esox Brasiliensis, Linn., 
as stated by M, Le Sueur ; who must also be in error in regarding one of 
his West Indian species as the Esox marginatus, Forsk. 
I trust that Dr. Bancroft’s exertions will enable him to procure speci- 
mens of the other western Hemiramphi for comparison ; and should the 
present prove to be distinct, as I apprehend it will, I would propose for 
it the trivial name of apicalis. 
ll. This fish is referable to the sub-genus Saurus, Cuv., and is cer- 
tainly nearly related to the Salmo fetens, Linn. Without extensively 
consulting specimens, it would be impossible to determine any species of 
a group so comparatively numerous, and mostly differing from each other 
only in particulars requiring close examination. 
12. Tothe species figured by Bloch, t»b. cccxxutt (copied in Shaw’s 
General Zoology), the fish transmitted by Dr. Bancroft cannot be referred. 
It differs in its markings totally, as that gentleman remarks, from Bloch’s 
